AEC V8

[erf]

Carryfast:

ERF:

Carryfast:
8 Why would/should anyone stop posting based on what any one else has posted.

An excellent question CF, if I may say so.

Having given this several long seconds of thought, I can only conclude that there must be some highly intolerant individuals on this forum who possibly take exception to the bigoted diatribe peddled out by others.

I’m sure you have seen the type of posts to which I refer, like where the relevant opinions of accomplished professionals are completely and utterly ridiculed and ignored.
Like where actual practical experience and solid research flys in the face of others theories.
Like where highly successful commercial products are belittled by repeated use of flaccid cliché’s, just because the ‘contributor’ doesn’t like them…

That would be my guess.

Blimey next you’ll be saying exactly the same thing about all the truck engine designers to date for not enthusiastically following AEC’s zb’d up design ideas.

The only ridicule and misrepresentation I’m seeing here is that of Stokes’ involvement in all this and his engineering knowledge,to save face for those others who really were to blame for it.

As for ‘solid research’ flying in the face of accepted practice.Yes it showed and history proved it.As I said don’t go trying pull 32t around the country with the job when you’ve finished it.Just as it should have been derated and used as a replacement for the even worse 500 fixed head wonder in the day.Sorry if the facts don’t fit the fan boy script.

I thought we had all been instructed to draw a line under this, but if there is one thing I won’t let pass it is being deliberately misquoted.

I actually said “…where actual practical experience and solid research flys in the face of others theories”. I 100% stand by that.

Like it or not CF, you are full to the brim with theories.
Your versions of ‘accepted engineering practice’ are not shared by fully qualified, vastly experienced and professional engineers, so are therefore just your own hollow theories. Nothing more.

As for your ‘…fan boy script’ quip… - but it did raise a smile!.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Carryfast, the intention is to restore the lorry to its original state, if you had take the time to read the posts from ERF, you would know that the plan was to use the original heads.

Do you really believe that he is going to the trouble and expense of sourcing two sets of modified heads in order to prove you wrong? If so it appears that you hold your opinion in higher regard than every other living human.

Apologies if I’ve read it wrong but as I’ve read it the claim is that it will be rebuilt in a way which would have fixed all of its original reliability issues ?.

If not then what’s your issue with what I’ve said.In that the problems in question weren’t just dreamt up by my imagination they were unfortunately and predictably all too real at least under the type of demands of max weight operation.So what did Leyland do.They struggled on with the V8 at its original design rating until they had no choice other than to knock it on the head let alone the even more flawed over stressed fixed head piece of junk.When the solution to both problems was staring them in the face in the form of use the V8 in de rated form to replace the fixed head in a less demanding role.Job done.Bearing in mind that’s effectively what the preservation scene is doing with the things.Oh wait that was all Stokes’ fault from its design,to it won’t work,to let’s knock it on the head.

While it’s all this bs hate bollox by a bunch of blind AEC fan boys that’s the only thing that’s doing my head in.

[ramone]

ERF:

ramone:
…and now a restorer who worked with them and if it is the guy I think it is has restored at least one before and put a Fuller behind it ( I could be wrong there ) and is now well on with another and trying to eradicate the problems that originally plagued them…

If you are referring to Steve Mayle, then yes, you are absolutely correct, he has fully restored a V8 before (with his son Johnny), and he did indeed put a Fuller RTO609 behind it. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, knows more about the Mandator V8 than Steve does, and nobody in this country restores lorries to a higher standard than he does (and believe me, I don’t make that statement lightly). Steve was, and still is, the only person I have complete trust in to work on my V8, and as I hope you agree when the finished lorry appears on these pages, I made the right choice.

If there is still interest once the engine story has concluded, I will tell the epic restoration tale of the chassis frame, the gearbox, the suspension…and last but not least, the 18 months of self inflicted hard labour on the cab by yours truly!.

I think you are underestimating yourself here , i dont think i`m alone in wanting to hear how the full restoration goes

[newmercman]

Carryfast:

newmercman:
Carryfast, the intention is to restore the lorry to its original state, if you had take the time to read the posts from ERF, you would know that the plan was to use the original heads.

Do you really believe that he is going to the trouble and expense of sourcing two sets of modified heads in order to prove you wrong? If so it appears that you hold your opinion in higher regard than every other living human.

Apologies if I’ve read it wrong but as I’ve read it the claim is that it will be rebuilt in a way which would have fixed all of its original reliability issues ?.

If not then what’s your issue with what I’ve said.In that the problems in question weren’t just dreamt up by my imagination they were unfortunately and predictably all too real at least under the type of demands of max weight operation.So what did Leyland do.They struggled on with the V8 at its original design rating until they had no choice other than to knock it on the head let alone the even more flawed over stressed fixed head piece of junk.When the solution to both problems was staring them in the face in the form of use the V8 in de rated form to replace the fixed head in a less demanding role.Job done.Bearing in mind that’s effectively what the preservation scene is doing with the things.Oh wait that was all Stokes’ fault from its design,to it won’t work,to let’s knock it on the head.

While it’s all this bs hate bollox by a bunch of blind AEC fan boys that’s the only thing that’s doing my head in.

You do have it wrong, nobody else has said that the V8 in the form that it was released was anything other than a prototype, I think we all agree that it needed a redesign to address it’s shortcomings. You’re the only one suggesting it should have been put into production as is, but in a lighter duty application, just as you’re the only one who compares it to a Scania 140, the rest of us know that it was only ever intended to be a more powerful Mandator.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[erf]

Carryfast:
…as I’ve read it the claim is that it will be rebuilt in a way which would have fixed all of its original reliability issues ?.

I made no such claim.
What I actually said was that we rebuilt the engine using modern techniques and processes, that WHERE POSSIBLE would improve it’s function and reliability.

Carryfast:
…When the solution to both problems was staring them in the face in the form of use the V8 in de rated form to replace the fixed head in a less demanding role.Job done…
…

LVL 164H was a Mandator V8 supplied brand new to Clayton Dewandre in Lincoln as a braking systems test vehicle.
It never hauled a commercial load in it’s working life.
When it’s tenure with Clayton Dewandre came to an end, it passed to Lincoln Ferrous Metals where an Hiab crane was fitted, the coupling removed and a cage constructed for carrying gas bottles around their premises.
When it passed into preservation in the 1990’s, it had only covered a genuine 54’000 miles of very light use.
When Steve Mayle opened up the engine he found exactly the same big end bearing failure issues (and others) as found in all the other well worked examples.
Your ‘less demanding role’ theory does not hold water in practice I’m afraid.
The issues the V8 had were there by way of it’s design and the materials available for it’s construction and operation at the time of it’s launch.

[deanb]

ERF:

DEANB:
What year was the V8 first made ?

The prototype engines were first fitted into adapted Mandator chassis in 1965, and were sent out for evaluation in 1966.
The production Mandator V8 was launched in 1968, and withdrawn from sale early in 1970.

Thanks “ERF” i will see if i have anything on them.

[gingerfold]

Donald Stokes and his input into the V8.

I would like to go on record to correct maybe a false impression that has been created to the effect that Donald Stokes was responsible for ordering the premature launch of the V8. Personally I have never made that accusation against Donald Stokes, and I am not aware that anyone else contributing to this discussion has either. Donald Stokes was the man in charge of the group at the time of the launch and he was fully aware of all developments at AEC, and other Leyland group companies. At the time of the AEC and Leyland merger in 1962 both Donald Stokes and Stanley Markland immediately joined the AEC Board of Directors. For those who are not familiar with corporate company governance then when large companies either merge, or get taken over, then it is standard practice for directors of one company to join the board of the other company. For financial accounting purposes then individual companies within a grouping will continue to report financial results separately, hence the requirement for separate boards of directors. As Chief Executive of the group then Donald Stokes would sign off all major policy and financial decisions reached by the Leyland Group board.

I have written previously that Donald Stokes served his engineering apprenticeship at Leyland Motors and his father was General Manager of Plymouth Corporation Transport. Donald Stokes built his career at Leyland in Sales and Marketing, and was a very good winner of large contracts at home and overseas. He was described as a very ambitious individual but with charisma and plenty of charm. I have always thought that Donald Stokes has not been treated particularly well by some transport journalists and historians. He was handed a poisoned chalice and an impossible job. Whether he was the right man for the top job in the mid-1960s is not for any of us to say at such a distance of time. At the time, and even retrospectively, there were only two possible internal candidates for the job, Donald Stokes and Stanley Markland. Stokes got the appointment and Markland resigned.

Another point when looking at the broader picture of the company “cultural” differences between the original Leyland and AEC companies. It has been written and said, by myself and others, that AEC was an engineering led company, and that Leyland was more sales orientated. I now think after researching over a longer period of time that the statement is something of an over simplification. In their history both companies had prominent engineers whose names are respected even to this day. Both companies pushed the engineering boundaries of the time, a concept completely lost on one or two people. It is only by pushing boundaries that progress is made.

[gingerfold]

Some notes on the Mandator V8 prototypes and production variants.

Seven pre-production protypes were built. VTG4L 002 was a left hand control model that was retained by AEC’s experimental department. Three fleet prototypes were allocated to sizable hauliers for evaluation purposes. NGO 449D was registered in August 1966 and went to Western Transport. At some stage it was involved in an accident and repaired. Also in August 1966 the second fleet prototype, (reg. no. not recorded) went to Russell of Bathgate. The third one, NGJ 294D was registered in September 1966 and went to Turners of Soham. It was double shifted for three years, typically running at night with raw sugar from British Sugar at Ely to Tate and Lyle Liverpool, or Ely to Silvertown twice in a shift. At other times outside the sugar beet campaign it was used on general haulage night trunking and day runs. Long serving Turners drivers even in the 1990s would claim that in performance terms it was 25 years ahead of anything else on the roads of the 1960s.

Of the remaining three prototypes, two went to South Africa in November 1966 and the final one went to Australia in December 1966.

In October 1967 a Mandator V8 (VTG4R 010) entered the AEC Works Transport fleet, remembered by AEC Service people as the ‘go-to’ lorry when urgent spares were needed somewhere.

The first general sales V8s entered service in February 1968, VTG4R 009 (reg no. not recorded), this went to Hipwood and Grundy of Farnworth. Guinness put VTG4R 011, TMC 10F into service in February 1968. From February 1968 onwards there were regular registrations to a variety of customers, some of whom are still in business today. All of the first 50 general sales V8s had versions of the 6-speed overdrive gearbox.

List price of a Mandator V8 (6-speed gearbox) in 1968 was £4,134.

The first of the 5 high datum cabbed V8s were registered as early as March 1968, indicating that AEC was well aware of cooling issues very early on in the building programme.

In March 1968 AEC Experimental Department had two more Mandator V8s allocated to them. It is thought that these were for optional gearbox trials, and in September 1968 the said Experimental Department took in a high datum cabbed V8 with an epicyclic gearbox.

In October 1968 VTG4R 115, OTE 948G went to Hipwood and Grundy fitted with the semi-automatic 357/68 gearbox. In November and December 1968 Cawoods had two similar Two-Pedal V8s, and Air Products had one, RTJ 967G. Hipwood and Grundy would have a further ten semi-automatics in late 1968.

The first general sales V8 with a 10-speed splitter 'box was 2VTG4R7 108, built in early 1969 and went to Commercial Vehicles (Harold Wood).

January 1969, the enlarged AVM/801 V8 engine became available. Of the 60 Mandator V8s built with this engine variant more than 40 went to Australia and New Zealand.

Records exist for 365 assembled Mandator V8s, of which about 60 were exported. Of the 365 there were 22 semi-automatics and 39 with 10-speed splitter 'boxes.

To be continued with further info if anyone is interested…

[carryfast]

ERF:

Carryfast:
…as I’ve read it the claim is that it will be rebuilt in a way which would have fixed all of its original reliability issues ?.

I made no such claim.
What I actually said was that we rebuilt the engine using modern techniques and processes, that WHERE POSSIBLE would improve it’s function and reliability.

Carryfast:
…When the solution to both problems was staring them in the face in the form of use the V8 in de rated form to replace the fixed head in a less demanding role.Job done…
…

LVL 164H was a Mandator V8 supplied brand new to Clayton Dewandre in Lincoln as a braking systems test vehicle.
It never hauled a commercial load in it’s working life.
When it’s tenure with Clayton Dewandre came to an end, it passed to Lincoln Ferrous Metals where an Hiab crane was fitted, the coupling removed and a cage constructed for carrying gas bottles around their premises.
When it passed into preservation in the 1990’s, it had only covered a genuine 54’000 miles of very light use.
When Steve Mayle opened up the engine he found exactly the same big end bearing failure issues (and others) as found in all the other well worked examples.
Your ‘less demanding role’ theory does not hold water in practice I’m afraid.
The issues the V8 had were there by way of it’s design and the materials available for it’s construction and operation at the time of it’s launch.

Thanks for clarifying exactly what you meant and apologies for reading it wrong but understandable.

Everything else seems consistent with what I’ve said.Inherent design flaws which couldn’t possibly be fixed because they were built in within the measurements of the architecture.It seems strange how nmm thinks that the plan was always about trying to make a more powerful Mandator.But Fryers said that he didn’t know what the thing was supposed to be for or what role it was going to be used for.

As for Leyland trying to save the day by derating it.That would obviously depend on the definition of ‘derating’.In the case of that example what were the demands of its brake testing role ?.It’s a reasonable bet that its output wouldn’t have been reduced to that of the 500 as I’ve envisaged as part of that role.While the clue as to why it showed the predictable issues of the V8’s weak/over stressed bottom end being in the question why did Clayton need a V8 for its testing regime rather than any of the numerous less powerful options ?.

On that note how can you say that the less demanding output requirement of the 500 market sector supposedly doesn’t hold water unless you can show that any V8 was actually derated to match the output of the 500 at most ( doubtful ) ?.While obviously confirming what I’ve said.The V8 was a case of trying to extract too much power and torque,from a too small capacity for a V8 and the resulting compromised leverage that provided at the crank.Derating it to the output of the 500 then using it as a replacement being the obvious solution.

[ramone]

gingerfold:
Some notes on the Mandator V8 prototypes and production variants.

Seven pre-production protypes were built. VTG4L 002 was a left hand control model that was retained by AEC’s experimental department. Three fleet prototypes were allocated to sizable hauliers for evaluation purposes. NGO 449D was registered in August 1966 and went to Western Transport. At some stage it was involved in an accident and repaired. Also in August 1966 the second fleet prototype, (reg. no. not recorded) went to Russell of Bathgate. The third one, NGJ 294D was registered in September 1966 and went to Turners of Soham. It was double shifted for three years, typically running at night with raw sugar from British Sugar at Ely to Tate and Lyle Liverpool, or Ely to Silvertown twice in a shift. At other times outside the sugar beet campaign it was used on general haulage night trunking and day runs. Long serving Turners drivers even in the 1990s would claim that in performance terms it was 25 years ahead of anything else on the roads of the 1960s.

Of the remaining three prototypes, two went to South Africa in November 1966 and the final one went to Australia in December 1966.

In October 1967 a Mandator V8 (VTG4R 010) entered the AEC Works Transport fleet, remembered by AEC Service people as the ‘go-to’ lorry when urgent spares were needed somewhere.

The first general sales V8s entered service in February 1968, VTG4R 009 (reg no. not recorded), this went to Hipwood and Grundy of Farnworth. Guinness put VTG4R 011, TMC 10F into service in February 1968. From February 1968 onwards there were regular registrations to a variety of customers, some of whom are still in business today. All of the first 50 general sales V8s had versions of the 6-speed overdrive gearbox.

List price of a Mandator V8 (6-speed gearbox) in 1968 was £4,134.

The first of the 5 high datum cabbed V8s were registered as early as March 1968, indicating that AEC was well aware of cooling issues very early on in the building programme.

In March 1968 AEC Experimental Department had two more Mandator V8s allocated to them. It is thought that these were for optional gearbox trials, and in September 1968 the said Experimental Department took in a high datum cabbed V8 with an epicyclic gearbox.

In October 1968 VTG4R 115, OTE 948G went to Hipwood and Grundy fitted with the semi-automatic 357/68 gearbox. In November and December 1968 Cawoods had two similar Two-Pedal V8s, and Air Products had one, RTJ 967G. Hipwood and Grundy would have a further ten semi-automatics in late 1968.

The first general sales V8 with a 10-speed splitter 'box was 2VTG4R7 108, built in early 1969 and went to Commercial Vehicles (Harold Wood).

January 1969, the enlarged AVM/801 V8 engine became available. Of the 60 Mandator V8s built with this engine variant more than 40 went to Australia and New Zealand.

Records exist for 365 assembled Mandator V8s, of which about 60 were exported. Of the 365 there were 22 semi-automatics and 39 with 10-speed splitter 'boxes.

To be continued with further info if anyone is interested…

Yes continue please Graham , ive read the book but many on here havent and i`m sure they will be interested

[frankydobo]

Very interesting Graham thanks for that, don’t suppose you know which or how many vehicles were used as Demo’s and did these get sold on or stay with AEC. I’ve been thinking hard to over 50 years ago but I believe the unit I worked on would have been around 1969 or 70, just wish I could recall in more detail. Keep it coming Franky.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
just as you’re the only one who compares it to a Scania 140, the rest of us know that it was only ever intended to be a more powerful Mandator.

If it wasn’t ever meant to be a 140 competitor then why did they envisage a 352 hp turbocharged example ?.Although I’d really liked to have seen it on the dyno at a very safe distance behind some very thick armoured glass at that output.

[carryfast]

gingerfold:
Donald Stokes and his input into the V8.

I would like to go on record to correct maybe a false impression that has been created to the effect that Donald Stokes was responsible for ordering the premature launch of the V8. Personally I have never made that accusation against Donald Stokes, and I am not aware that anyone else contributing to this discussion has either. Donald Stokes was the man in charge of the group at the time of the launch and he was fully aware of all developments at AEC, and other Leyland group companies. At the time of the AEC and Leyland merger in 1962 both Donald Stokes and Stanley Markland immediately joined the AEC Board of Directors. For those who are not familiar with corporate company governance then when large companies either merge, or get taken over, then it is standard practice for directors of one company to join the board of the other company. For financial accounting purposes then individual companies within a grouping will continue to report financial results separately, hence the requirement for separate boards of directors. As Chief Executive of the group then Donald Stokes would sign off all major policy and financial decisions reached by the Leyland Group board.

I have written previously that Donald Stokes served his engineering apprenticeship at Leyland Motors and his father was General Manager of Plymouth Corporation Transport. Donald Stokes built his career at Leyland in Sales and Marketing, and was a very good winner of large contracts at home and overseas. He was described as a very ambitious individual but with charisma and plenty of charm. I have always thought that Donald Stokes has not been treated particularly well by some transport journalists and historians. He was handed a poisoned chalice and an impossible job. Whether he was the right man for the top job in the mid-1960s is not for any of us to say at such a distance of time. At the time, and even retrospectively, there were only two possible internal candidates for the job, Donald Stokes and Stanley Markland. Stokes got the appointment and Markland resigned.

Another point when looking at the broader picture of the company “cultural” differences between the original Leyland and AEC companies. It has been written and said, by myself and others, that AEC was an engineering led company, and that Leyland was more sales orientated. I now think after researching over a longer period of time that the statement is something of an over simplification. In their history both companies had prominent engineers whose names are respected even to this day. Both companies pushed the engineering boundaries of the time, a concept completely lost on one or two people. It is only by pushing boundaries that progress is made.

Gong by the information in CM’s archives it would arguably be fair to say that Albert Fogg was the enthusiastic driving force behind the AEC V8’s introduction not Stokes.

Which leaves the question of Bob Friars’ comments.He is quoted as saying that his team were ‘horrified’ when they were told to put it in the Mandator.He also states that from the outset they didn’t know whether it was an industrial,marine,automotive,or any other application or its corresponding duty cycles.All they knew was that it had to be a compact engine capable of 300 hp.

At which point the only logical answer should then have been to ask Fogg to define compact and why.Followed by you can’t have 4 stroke,compact,reliable and 300 hp in the same package whether it’s for a genset,or a boat,or a truck.Not try to follow Fogg’s commercially suicidal instruction.If there is anyone to blame it can only be a culture of yes men among Friar’s team answering Fogg’s call to jump with how high.Probably confirmed by their idea that the ‘basic prototype’ that they then made just needed further development.

As opposed to the measurements that they were working with couldn’t possibly work at that type of output rating before attempting to make it.Then put it in writing with a threat to resign if the muppet refused to back down.

[erf]

An excellent post Graham.
It’s posts like this that make it worth persevering, so many thanks!.

gingerfold:
Some notes on the Mandator V8 prototypes and production variants.

Seven pre-production protypes were built. VTG4L 002 was a left hand control model that was retained by AEC’s experimental department. Three fleet prototypes were allocated to sizable hauliers for evaluation purposes. NGO 449D was registered in August 1966 and went to Western Transport. At some stage it was involved in an accident and repaired. Also in August 1966 the second fleet prototype, (reg. no. not recorded) went to Russell of Bathgate. The third one, NGJ 294D was registered in September 1966 and went to Turners of Soham. It was double shifted for three years, typically running at night with raw sugar from British Sugar at Ely to Tate and Lyle Liverpool, or Ely to Silvertown twice in a shift. At other times outside the sugar beet campaign it was used on general haulage night trunking and day runs. Long serving Turners drivers even in the 1990s would claim that in performance terms it was 25 years ahead of anything else on the roads of the 1960s.

Of the remaining three prototypes, two went to South Africa in November 1966 and the final one went to Australia in December 1966.

I said in my earlier post that only four AV740 prototype engines were built.
We must make it clear here that there is a distinction to be made between prototype engines and prototype lorries.
The only one of the prototype lorries that I ever managed to prove conclusively was fitted with one of the four earliest (four rocker cover) prototype engines was VTG4R 007, the vehicle sent to Australia and operated by Freight Transfer Pty Ltd…

I’m not saying that there were not others, the Turners and Western Transport vehicles for example, but certainly the engines issued to Vanaja for cold climate testing were what we would consider full production specification units.

gingerfold:
The first general sales V8s entered service in February 1968, VTG4R 009 (reg no. not recorded), this went to Hipwood and Grundy of Farnworth.

Very significant in this story, because the Mandator V8 was not officially launched until the 24th of May 1968, with a full embargo on any information until after that date.

gingerfold:
The first of the 5 high datum cabbed V8s were registered as early as March 1968, indicating that AEC was well aware of cooling issues very early on in the building programme.

I think this may perhaps be barking up the wrong tree.
From my information, the high datum cabs were only fitted to vehicles equipped with 12 inch deep chassis rails. Examples of both Mandator V8 4x2 and Mammoth Major V8 6x4 were so equipped, but the standard for all home market Mandator’s was the 10 inch deep chassis, and as far as I was aware, all of these 10 inch chassis equipped vehicles were fitted with low datum cabs.
I will of course be corrected!.

gingerfold:
January 1969, the enlarged AVM/801 V8 engine became available. Of the 60 Mandator V8s built with this engine variant more than 40 went to Australia and New Zealand.

I have sales documentation offering the 13.1 litre AV800/801 engine in the export Mandator and Mammoth Major V8 from August 1968, so again, it is significant and very interesting if deliveries didn’t commence until the following January.

It should be noted that from it’s initial conception, AEC had always intended to supply at least two capacities of the V8 from the same block casting. Prototype development of the 12.1 litre and 13.1 litre engines was entirely simultaneous, even though the first on stream production wise was the smaller capacity unit.

gingerfold:
To be continued with further info if anyone is interested…

You really need to ask…■■?

[carryfast]

gingerfold:
Some notes on the Mandator V8 prototypes and production variants.

Seven pre-production protypes were built. VTG4L 002 was a left hand control model that was retained by AEC’s experimental department. Three fleet prototypes were allocated to sizable hauliers for evaluation purposes. NGO 449D was registered in August 1966

Can you provide the exact point in time that Friars was referring to when the first instruction from the group engineering dept,for the design of ‘a compact 300 hp engine’ was first called for, followed by the drawing board stage leading on from that ?.That all has to be well before 1966 in that case ?.Possibly even before Albert Fogg’s appointment ?.

[gingerfold]

All the industrial variant V8 engines were AVM/801s, so it is very possible that some were in use before 1969.

[gingerfold]

Frankydobo:
Very interesting Graham thanks for that, don’t suppose you know which or how many vehicles were used as Demo’s and did these get sold on or stay with AEC. I’ve been thinking hard to over 50 years ago but I believe the unit I worked on would have been around 1969 or 70, just wish I could recall in more detail. Keep it coming Franky.

Franky, the Mandator V8 chassis records are some of the most complete in the AEC archives, partly because there were so few of them compared to the thousands of other AEC models built. So there are one or two gaps in the records, but nearly all of them have details of either customer or registration number and date of registration. In 99% of the cases both pieces of information are recorded. The only chassis build sheets which have details of chassis number and all engine, gearbox etc details, but no customer and / or registration number can be assumed to be dealer demonstrators, and I would put that figure at no more than 3 or 4. Obviously a dealer would want to sell a demonstrator in due course.

[deanb]

Advert from 1968.

Click on twice.

[gingerfold]

Carryfast:

gingerfold:
Some notes on the Mandator V8 prototypes and production variants.

Seven pre-production protypes were built. VTG4L 002 was a left hand control model that was retained by AEC’s experimental department. Three fleet prototypes were allocated to sizable hauliers for evaluation purposes. NGO 449D was registered in August 1966

Can you provide the exact point in time that Friars was referring to when the first instruction from the group engineering dept,for the design of ‘a compact 300 hp engine’ was first called for, followed by the drawing board stage leading on from that ?.That all has to be well before 1966 in that case ?.Possibly even before Albert Fogg’s appointment ?.

I can’t give the precise date CF, but development work started in mid-1964. From what I learned it wasn’t even a full time development when it started, but a filling in project when time and resources allowed. Keith Roberts was the engineer in charge of engine development at AEC at that time.

[erf]

ERF:
I said in my earlier post that only four AV740 prototype engines were built.
We must make it clear here that there is a distinction to be made between prototype engines and prototype lorries.
The only one of the prototype lorries that I ever managed to prove conclusively was fitted with one of the four earliest (four rocker cover) prototype engines was VTG4R 007, the vehicle sent to Australia and operated by Freight Transfer Pty Ltd…

I’m not saying that there were not others, the Turners and Western Transport vehicles for example, but certainly the engines issued to Vanaja for cold climate testing were what we would consider full production specification units.

One of the great things about TN is that it makes you go back over things you believe to be correct, and re-look at them.
This morning in all my V8 bumph I found this photo…

…which proves that a very early imperial prototype engine was indeed fitted to VTG4R 003, the Western Transport vehicle.
This makes it almost a certainty that 005, the Turners vehicle had one too.
If I had to make an educated guess, I would say that very early imperial prototype units were fitted into VTG4R 003, 004, 005, 006 and 007.
I have never seen any firm evidence of a fifth imperial engine though, and all the data analysed by AEC was from engine 1/4, 2/4, 3/4 and 4/4.
The prototype engine I had at one time that was fitted into my V8 was 3/4.

VTG4R 008, 009 and all subsequent vehicles had full production specification metric engines.
I have no information for VTG4R 002.
VTG4L 001 was a production specification vehicle in all respects.