AEC V8

ERF-NGC-European:

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

Yes i agree with that ,we had Turbostars and TECs and you are 100% correct , they fell to bits cab wise but those 360s were also a very good engine ,the 300s were average

railstaff:
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.

The 15.6 litre DC16 was launched in 2000, in 480 and 580 guises. I think the 17 litre V8 was available until 2002 at 520bhp, so there is a valid comparison there- old (8280) vs. new. I suppose the comparison should also include the Cursor 13, in the guise in which it superceded the 8280.

My original thought was an 8280 at the end of its design life and an up to the minute Scania DC16.A bit like comparing a TD120 with D13.

Doing all of those comparisons would make interesting reading. How much more BMEP did the original DC16 have, compared to the contemporary 8280? Given your earlier descriptions of structural failure modes, how have the designs accommodated the increase in BMEP over the subsequent years?

Carryfast:

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.

You do have a valid point here, without the negativity in your other posts, it comes over completely differently. I think I get your point now, I am right in assuming that you think that BL should have innovated and started the trend of high HP?

Something to give them an edge over the competition and potentially be the other Scania, which made a fairly decent lorry, but only really became as desirable as they are through its V8 models, the 141 to be precise.

An earlier launch of the T45 range, with the availability of high HP engines in all sectors, as history has proven, it would have been a good strategy.

Also I am guilty of introducing the big FIAT into the argument, it was meant only to be an example of a successful oversquare naturally aspirated design, but it’s been an interesting tangent, for me at least, having had experience of the engine in its later incarnations.

Anorak, I had four of the Cursor 13 Stralisat 540HP too, with a little V8 Scania break separating them from the FIAT V8 (I’m a bit of a power freak) and they were also a very strong engine, not in the same vein as the V8s, which were immensely strong pull a house down engines, the Cursor needed to be driven, but when you did, boy those things had some grunt.

I remember an occasion on the M25 going up from J5 towards the tunnel when I was loaded to 44tons, at the bottom of the hill an FH pulled into the middle lane ready for the inevitable overtake as we started climbing, I dropped a full gear, mine had the 16spd AsTronic and stuck my boot into it, by the time I got on level ground I couldn’t tell if it was an FH or an FM in my mirrors it was that far behind. When I stopped at Purfleet to deliver the FH pulled in behind me, it was a 4x2, so only 40ton gross at best and the driver came over for a chat, he was shocked that I had left him for dead as he had seen my trailer bouncing going down the road and knew I was heavy, having a 460 FH he thought he would fly past the IVECO.

All four of mine averaged in the low 8mpg range, I ran them 24/7 on fairly light supermarket work on days and a night trunk at 44ton both ways to S Wales and back (which I was doing when I blew the doors off the FH) I had one turbo failure on an 05 model when it was a couple of months old, that ended up grenading (literally) after the dealer doing the job under warranty didn’t clean the oil from the intercooler and had a complete engine replacement. They wanted to do a short block exchange, but after a lot of back and forth with IVECO and me threatening to chain myself naked to the railings outside HQ at Watford and get the TV news people involved, they relented and put a new engine in it for me and we all lived happily ever after.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

railstaff:
My original thought was an 8280 at the end of its design life and an up to the minute Scania DC16.A bit like comparing a TD120 with D13.

CAT 3408 v Fiat V8 v ■■■■■■■ 903 v Scania 140 ?.

That’s an average of 16 litres and an average 135 mm stroke.What made Leyland think that they could get away with such a reduction in those relevant measurements for just a 4t reduction in gross design weight from US design weights. ?. Bearing in mind that logically going for the obvious bore and stroke of the 690.Or possibly even the 760’s 136 bore and the 515’s 130 mm stroke would have given them a sub 15 litre Scania and 903 killer.

Going for 130 x 114 seems to fit the idea of sabotage on the orders from above don’t compete against the Euros or the 903.The result being a medium duty V8 put into servive as a max weight long hauler with predictable results. :bulb:

newmercman:

Carryfast:
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.

You do have a valid point here, without the negativity in your other posts, it comes over completely differently. I think I get your point now, I am right in assuming that you think that BL should have innovated and started the trend of high HP?

That’s more or less what I’m saying.The only difference being that I’m saying that the failure to do that was deliberate.Bearing in mind that I’m mostly relaying what I was actually told/heard in the day in general conversation with Scammell’s workforce ( and Bedford’s ) when I often went there as part of my job.

You had to spoil it with the conspiracy theory didn’t you!

I like a good conspiracy, but I can’t see the point of that one, I don’t think Volvo or Daf were big enough players to force such an event and it was a long time coming too. Also what was the gain? No more money was made, the same amount of trucks were produced, production and labour costs would be the same. I think it was just arrogance and incompetence as I suggested before. From what I’ve read about BL, that seems to be the reason for its decline. Stokes insistence on not competing in the European truck sales market being a big factor, which was both arrogant and incompetent.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

Isnt that exactly what AEC did with the V8 , 247 bhp upwards in 68 was high powered , 273 bhp in 73 with the TL12 was high powered compared with the average for the day..... The V8 was a disaster for reasons already discussed, the TL12 wasnt ,for reasons already discussed. BL didn`t have the finances to fund a completely new engine .As for deliberately sabotaging the future your source is workers at Scammell and Bedford , I will guarantee that if you went into 80% of the companies in Britain you would speak to disgruntled workers who will complain about the firms they work for and how they could do a better job at running them :wink:

AEC V8 Engine Restoration - Part Two.

(Part one is several pages back now, if anyone lands here and is looking for it).

In this part we will cover the cylinder heads.

The original heads from engine 316 were chemically cleaned inside and out at the same time as the block, and were sent over to Ivor Searle of Soham for reconditioning and hot pressure testing. Hot pressure testing involves sealing off all the water ports, immersing the head into a tank of hot water at normal engine running temperature, and applying air pressure to the water channels in the head so that any leaks can be seen as bubbles. After a couple of weeks I got the call I’d been dreading - your heads are both cracked.

I went over to Soham to see for myself and plan the way forward, but the news was not good. One head had failed the hot pressure test catastrophically, with bubbles coming from deep within an exhaust port - probably due to the ‘hot spot’ cracking mentioned earlier in the thread, where the coolant boils within the head, forms a steam pocket allowing the iron to dramatically heat up, then gets cooled suddenly when the coolant begins to flow again as the RPM of the water pump increases. This particular head was scrap, no feasible repair could be done with the crack being located so deep in the port. The other head had failed it’s hot pressure test too, this time leaking around two of the injector sleeves, but with a set of dummy injectors fitted and torqued down, it was re-tested and passed with no leaks.

At this time the second head was due to be refaced by Searles, and was showing clear cracks between the injector hole and the valve seats. As those with experience of direct injection Diesel engines will know, this type of cracking is very very common, and although never ideal it is often not a cause of great concern if it is considered minor. As these cracks were not leaking under pressure when hot, it was all of our thinking that they would not be an issue - but I was far from happy to leave it as I was striving to create as close to a new engine as possible…

V8 Head crack.jpg

The search was now on for pair of replacement heads, no easy task with an engine as rare as an AEC V8. They had to be AV740 heads too, as the AV800 heads have bigger valves to suit the larger bore size that will not clear the top edge of the AV740 liners. A lucky break (or so it seemed) came in the form of a pair of heads from a former AEC V8 owner who had acquired what he believed to be a pair of brand new unused AV740 heads as spares for his engine. These were bought and stripped down, during which it became very obvious that they had been at least run on an engine due to the presence of carbon in the ports. These heads were sent off for chemical cleaning, as before…

IMG_1168.JPG

It was then back to Soham for another round of hot pressure testing with everything crossable crossed!. But to no avail - I got another phone call to say that one of the replacement pair of heads had a catastrophic crack into one of the oil galleries. This really was a double blow, the heads had been bought as new items, but clearly were not, and on top of that one was cracked!. I got a real sense at this point that patience was wearing very thin at Searles with me and my seemingly endless stream of unserviceable engine parts, so I collected everything up and took time to collect thoughts on a way forward.

I now had four heads, and with them all on the bench one day noticed something quite interesting. The original heads from engine 316 were marked with a cast ‘A’ between the centre valve guides, one of the replacements was similarly marked, but the other was marked ‘A1’. On studying them all, the ‘A1’ head had some obvious modifications to the casting compared to the other three, and it was this head which had passed the last hot pressure test. At this point in the project I was really lucky to find a guy called Simon Smart who runs Automotive Services in Northampton, a firm specialising in reconditioning all types of engine components. I should perhaps point out that the Northampton area is great for finding really good engine machine shops and the like because of it’s proximity to Silverstone and the motorsport businesses based there - something which would benefit this AEC V8 project more than once over it’s course.

Simon took a genuine interest in the V8, not least because he knew AEC’s from his fathers time as a lorry driver for London Brick in the 60’s and 70’s. Simon re-tested all four heads, and reached the same conclusion as Searles, the ‘A1’ head had passed the hot pressure test with no issues at all, and one of the original ‘A’ heads had passed, but had the minor face cracking. The search was now on again to try to find yet another head to make a perfect pair for engine 316. A worldwide search proved fruitless, but eventually a complete engine was located which had allegedly been rebuilt by AEC at some point in it’s life. This engine was bought, stripped and noted to have one head marked ‘A1’, and another head marked ‘A2’ - with even further casting modifications!..

IMG_2415.JPG

IMG_2414.JPG

Now the thing we must recognise here is that engine 316 was built very late in 1969, and was one of the last AV740 engines built before sales of the AEC Mandator V8 were suspended. The fact that improved ‘A1’ and ‘A2’ marked heads were produced after the ‘A’ marked heads originally fitted to engine 316 proves that AEC were still working to get some of the V8’s reliability issues addressed even after production had stopped, something I don’t think has ever been credited to them.

The most recently acquired pair of heads were again chemically cleaned and then sent off to Simon, and this time both passed the hot pressure test, and both had no face cracking - so after six cylinder heads at last we had a perfect pair, and even a spare!. Simon selected the very best pair dimensionally and set about fully reconditioning them with a face re-grind, re-cut valve seats, brand new old stock valves and new metric valve guides which he actually managed to cross reference from a Rolls Royce application.

The heads were now fully sorted and ready to go, so it was time to look at the crankshaft, pistons and camshaft - in the next instalment!.

newmercman:
You had to spoil it with the conspiracy theory didn’t you!

I like a good conspiracy, but I can’t see the point of that one, I don’t think Volvo or Daf were big enough players to force such an event and it was a long time coming too. Also what was the gain? No more money was made, the same amount of trucks were produced, production and labour costs would be the same. I think it was just arrogance and incompetence as I suggested before. From what I’ve read about BL, that seems to be the reason for its decline. Stokes insistence on not competing in the European truck sales market being a big factor, which was both arrogant and incompetent.

:confused:

How could Stokes have had anything to do with AEC at the time of the V8’s ‘design’ when at that point he was just working for Triumph cars nothing more nothing less ?.It’s ‘design’ being the point.

As for DAF ‘or’ Volvo.It might all look a bit different if you look at the bigger picture of US foreign policy and US banks’ exposure to European post war debt.In addition to ■■■■■■■■ obvious interest and investment in UK manufacturing of its products here in the day and the leverage that gave them regarding UK industrial policy.It’s not difficult to see the conflict of interest there in Leyland then throwing a spanner in the works of all those combined American interests,not the individual interests of just DAF and Volvo.No doubt resulting in my counterpart at shop floor level working at AEC in the day saying exactly what I’m saying.Why aren’t we making a ■■■■■■■ 903 killer instead of this silly little grenade.Oh wait that will upset …the Americans not just the Swedes or the Dutch.You can add the situation over at Bedford in lumbering the TM with the obsolete 71 series while making customers jump through hoops to get a 92 series in it. :bulb: On that note don’t underestimate just how much of our domestic economic and industrial policy was being dictated from across the Atlantic.As for Stokes as I’ve said victim and scapegoat not villain.

What a super story. Thanks for sharing it.

I wonder how good the final detail design changes were, with no time for proper durability testing, due to the fact that the modified parts were being used as service replacements? I am guessing that the engines that were delivered were so unreliable, that AEC rightly took a flier on obvious improvements, such as those you describe. If they had identified and eliminated the cause of the localised overheating, for example, then why wait to be 100% confident of the modifications, when you are already 100% certain that the parts they are replacing are bad? The engineers might have been fighting fires but, in the frenzy, they might have actually developed something quite acceptable.

I find all of this stuff riveting- the restorers are actually part of the development process, retrospectively of course. It’s far more worthy than the usual paint-it-and-show-it stuff that accounts for the majority of old lorry restoration work. Keep it going chaps.

Fascinating and very detailed. What time scale is involved here? From taking the first heads to Ivor Searle to finally getting your “as new” heads?

There are several verified accounts that AEC continued to work on the V8 engine after sales were suspended. I do have an official AEC / Leyland policy document that states that an improved V8 was being considered for re-launch in 1971.

Just another thought. AEC never had its own foundry, so which foundry was AEC working with in re-designing these castings? Historically AEC’s casting suppliers were Ley’s and Qualcast, but by the time of the V8 were castings being supplied from Leyland’s own foundry?

Very interesting and helpful so many thanks for the valuable information and about where to go. I have a pair of AV 590 heads away at the moment for pressure testing. These will be done hot for the reasons you described. The company I have sent them to do not immerse the heads since their new apparatus uses hot air instead - just as well in this case since they wanted the injectors too and they have only just come back from recon, so not a good idea to plunge them under water!

Am I imagining things or can I see a hairline crack at 5o’clock in what I assume to be the exhaust valve seat? As you say the cracks around the injector hole are almost symptomatic of an AEC engine, reinforcing the need for careful torquing of the injector hold down fixings; the casting is very thin in this area. Providing these cracks do not extend into the valve seat throat then we just have to live with them or pay for specialist attention. A dodge to get over the risk of cracking here, especially with a head which has been refaced an unknown number of times is to disregard AEC practice and to fit nozzle washers. This arguably affects the timing, but probably by less than the amount unequal length injector pipes are supposed to. I have in the past had a set of injectors with the wrong nozzle caps fitted which most definitely made a difference to the engine’s running, so injector tip protrusion does matter.

For those wondering why there are recon injectors followed by cylinder head pressure testing, we are investigating a cold start problem noticeably visibly, audibly and temporally worse than this below: this allied to a repeated CO2 test indicating that there is combustion gas in the coolant only when hot. Compression is being lost and between cylinders when cold, but not significantly when hot. Overhauled injectors made a noticeable difference to the cold starting, but the other tests warranted delving deeper.

There is a limit to how far I or the customer are prepared to go with this. Ideally this should come part further since there are other issues, but that is opening a can of worms with a price label which can get ever bigger. These wet liner engines have been run frequently without corrosion inhibitor but with a very weak antifreeze mixture for many years. The state of the visible waterways in this instance pointing to the probability of severe corrosion of the block in the vicinity of the liner O rings. This view backed up by the moth eaten state of the leaking water pump which had been the original defect.

youtube.com/watch?v=a15UeQrLsPY

If all other options run out it is possible to obtain new custom made castings from specialists.

I can’t begin to imagine the disappointment you must have felt when the second pair of heads failed the test. Restoring a lorry really is a labour of love.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

Carryfast:

railstaff:
My original thought was an 8280 at the end of its design life and an up to the minute Scania DC16.A bit like comparing a TD120 with D13.

CAT 3408 v Fiat V8 v ■■■■■■■ 903 v Scania 140 ?.

That’s an average of 16 litres and an average 135 mm stroke.What made Leyland think that they could get away with such a reduction in those relevant measurements for just a 4t reduction in gross design weight from US design weights. ?. Bearing in mind that logically going for the obvious bore and stroke of the 690.Or possibly even the 760’s 136 bore and the 515’s 130 mm stroke would have given them a sub 15 litre Scania and 903 killer.

Going for 130 x 114 seems to fit the idea of sabotage on the orders from above don’t compete against the Euros or the 903.The result being a medium duty V8 put into servive as a max weight long hauler with predictable results. :bulb:

Not making excuses but lets not forget how advanced the 903 was.

railstaff:

Carryfast:

railstaff:
My original thought was an 8280 at the end of its design life and an up to the minute Scania DC16.A bit like comparing a TD120 with D13.

CAT 3408 v Fiat V8 v ■■■■■■■ 903 v Scania 140 ?.

That’s an average of 16 litres and an average 135 mm stroke.What made Leyland think that they could get away with such a reduction in those relevant measurements for just a 4t reduction in gross design weight from US design weights. ?. Bearing in mind that logically going for the obvious bore and stroke of the 690.Or possibly even the 760’s 136 bore and the 515’s 130 mm stroke would have given them a sub 15 litre Scania and 903 killer.Just as standarsing on the Detroit 92 series at the right time in the TM would have given ■■■■■■■ another real headache.

Going for 130 x 114 seems to fit the idea of sabotage on the orders from above don’t compete against the Euros or the 903.The result being a medium duty V8 put into servive as a max weight long hauler with predictable results. :bulb:

Not making excuses but lets not forget how advanced the 903 was.

I’d guess that pitching the AEC V8 somewhere around the Scania design v the 903 was the perfectly obvious contemporary solution based on AEC’s existing architecture.The big question is why they seemed to have avoided that and let alone to such an unbelievably extreme level.Thereby turning a heavy duty design into a medium duty one. :confused:

While the resulting conflict of interest,between ■■■■■■■■ operations and ongoing UK investments v a Leyland produced 903 killer seems obvious. :bulb:

newmercman:
I can’t begin to imagine the disappointment you must have felt when the second pair of heads failed the test. Restoring a lorry really is a labour of love.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

Given that the old heads are now scrap, I would be tempted to section them, to show the failure, and possibly the cause of it. IE if there is a place in the head where there is known to be localised boiling, causing the stress resulting the cracking, then for observers to see that would be of great value, especially if it is known that later versions of the head had that feature changed to cure the problem.

Full credit to the people rebuilding the engine- we are the observers, while they are creating a working museum.