billcorrie:
I belive J Coates (HGV Services) Ltd of Leicester ran one in their driving school arm. I Joined them in 1973 & it had gone by then, only heard it mentioned. I know the RTITB had one, useful because of its 3 seats. John had close connections with Ford & Slater (still in existance) so may have sourced it through them. I have no idea of the number.
Hi, passed my test in one, in Bradford, can not remember the reg, there’s one on TN, OCE829H,
Les.
I got the article- thanks Gingerfold.
It is a very good read- Mr. Perry writes in an entertaining manner, for an engineer! The main conclusion I can draw from it is that my schoolboy maths is as rusty as anything that came out of British Leyland in the 1970s. How frustrating.
One interesting point, amongst the many that Mr. Perry raises, is that the injection timing of the engine was all over the place, due to the pump being incompatible with the engine. At least, that is what I understood from the article. I wonder if excessive injection advance at some engine speeds had something to do with the durability problems?
Yes Anorak, I had a headache after attempting to get my head around the maths and science of the tests. 
And yes, I agree AEC should have looked more closely at the injection pump and instead of using an “off the shelf” Simms Minimec pump they should have used one specifically designed for the engine. Perhaps Gardner had the right idea by using their own cambox on a CAV pump.
At least they were thinking in the right direction , turbocharging big engines more power … just needed the finance to perfect it
After some furious studying, I can just about make sense of some of it! I still don’t know why they refer to 1/3 harmonic. What’s wrong with the second harmonic? Why should it need to be mentioned, if the noise is measured at all audible frequencies? Perhaps I should read a book about noise!
I wonder if their rule-of-thumb equation for noise versus bore/speed still holds, with modern engines? I reckon the fiddle factor on the end has changed over the years.
I don’t necessarily agree with the opinion that the heavier piston of an oversquare engine causes a problem- for a given swept volume, an undersquare engine will have a longer crank radius and conn rod, so the two things must balance out, to some extent. The extra heat loss would not have troubled the AEC engineers, given that the V8 had its overheating issues! As we have discussed earlier in the thread, Unic made good overquare V8s and Mercedes Benz made reliable high-speed V’s, so the devil must be in greater detail than simple dimensions.
Mr. Perry mentions impending noise regulations, which the AEC V8 does not appear to be able to meet. I guess that this was as significant as any other factor, in BL’s decision to abandon it. Imagine the expense of developing the excess noise out of the engine. It would require at least as many brains as solving the mechanical problems.
Regarding the pump timing, the report says that it was fixed at 36.5 deg. BTDC, so the engine was too advanced at low revs and too retarded at high revs. It seems like an obvious, easy thing to do, to match the injection timing to the requirements of the engine. Maybe this is fertile ground for experimentation by restorers. Once again, the quality of Gardner’s engineering comes to light- they just got things right, without fuss.
So after reading these comments ,was the V8 doomed from the start or have there been over square V8s that have been a success ?
ramone:
So after reading these comments ,was the V8 doomed from the start or have there been over square V8s that have been a success ?
Define, “success”. 
Retired Old ■■■■:
Define, “success”.
The 17 litre Fiat V8 was a success. Nobody, anywhere, has ever said anything bad about it, as far as I know. According to some, Fiat developed it from the Unic 15 litre V8 or, at least, used the experience of Unic’s engineers to develop it.
I never had the pleasure of the Fiat V8. Presumably I was considered competent only to operate “normal”, mostly British engines with the usual limited horsepower. 
Retired Old ■■■■:
I never had the pleasure of the Fiat V8. Presumably I was considered competent only to operate “normal”, mostly British engines with the usual limited horsepower.
Newmercman’s opinion might help here. 
Retired Old ■■■■:
Define, “success”.
Good question. My definition is: a successful engine was in production for a long time, during which lots of the things were built. It developed a reputation for reliability and durability. It might have had some outstanding characteristic, which set it apart from the rest. My list of most successful commercial vehicle engines is:
Mercedes OM400 series
Gardner LX/LXB etc.
Mack Maxidyne
Scania DS14
■■■■■■■ 14 litre
Leyland 680/DAF DK1160
Detroit 71 series
My introduction to the big FIAT V8 was in a 170-35 that my Dad ran, a W reg IIRC, at that time it was an insane power output and for the context of this thread, it was very reliable, as was the rest of the lorry around it. It’s peers were 1626 Mercs, so that will give you a reference point to reliability as those things were bombproof.
Skip forwards a few years and I was running a few of my own, a couple of 35 Mercs, a Strato, a couple of 113s, an FL10 and an F16, a 95-400 Daf and a disaster that was the 143-470 with EDC that was no such thing as there were frequently times when the diesel was not being controlled electronically!
I downsized and chopped them all in, made a few quid, mostly from the F16 and the Daf and used that to buy a scruffy looking 190-48 TurboStar, I put new tyres all around it, had a very good bit of paint put on it, threw some oil and filters at it and went to work, it was the second best lorry I’ve ever owned, so far anyway… I never put a spanner to it and it was worked hard. It would eat V8 Scanias for breakfast and was decent on fuel as long as it never had too many Scania breakfasts.
I then had a 440-52 EuroStar and that thing was a pure animal. It had car like acceleration at 40t and again was never to see the inside of a workshop for anything other than routine servicing.
The in line 6 FIAT engines are also fantastic engines, come to think of it the engine is the heart of any vehicle and all Italian vehicles are particularly strong here, think Alfasud, or GTV, FIAT or Lancia twin cams, anything from Ferrari or Lamborghini, Ducati, Laverda or Moto Guzzi.
The bodywork was disolvable and the electrics were a disaster, but the engines were works of art 
Good post, nmm. I’ll add the Fiat V8 to my list, I think.
Over the years of its production, the Fiat V8 was never ahead of the Scania V8 on the spec sheet, except maybe in the era of the 190.48. The Swedish engine always had a bit more power. Were your Fiats tickled at the pump, or do production engines do different things to the ones delivered to DIN for testing, typically?
[zb]
anorak:
Good post, nmm. I’ll add the Fiat V8 to my list, I think.Over the years of its production, the Fiat V8 was never ahead of the Scania V8 on the spec sheet, except maybe in the era of the 190.48. The Swedish engine always had a bit more power. Were your Fiats tickled at the pump, or do production engines do different things to the ones delivered to DIN for testing, typically?
I am in agreement with nmm we had a 190.48 and it was awesome
[zb]
anorak:
Good post, nmm. I’ll add the Fiat V8 to my list, I think.Over the years of its production, the Fiat V8 was never ahead of the Scania V8 on the spec sheet, except maybe in the era of the 190.48. The Swedish engine always had a bit more power. Were your Fiats tickled at the pump, or do production engines do different things to the ones delivered to DIN for testing, typically?
All I can say to that is… There’s no substitute for cubic inches 
As newmercman says, the straight sixes were a really decent engine. I had one in an old Eurotech with twin splitter for a few years until the cab literally fell apart with the Italian tin worm. A very under-rated lorry in my book, went reasonably well, fairly quiet and comfortable, with an engine whose reliability was on a par with most other lorries, in fact it never let me down once.
Just to reiterate on newmercmans point about the Italian engines. I also ran a few Iveco’s, as in straight six form and V8’s, and they were underestimated and unbeatable, and that was against the big ■■■■■■■■ the 16-litre Volvo and, in the past, the V8 Mandator. My old man always used to say to me ''You can’t get a pint out of an half pint pot.".
Ken I don’t believe you have just said that You always cursed about brakes,electrics,interior cloth ripping
And deck chair patterns, interior plastics snapping,and cab rot ,
Evening Bill, I was talking about the engines we never had a engine failure Reversing light bulbs out for the test earnt good money
from them all the same .
Retired Old ■■■■:
As newmercman says, the straight sixes were a really decent engine. I had one in an old Eurotech with twin splitter for a few years until the cab literally fell apart with the Italian tin worm. A very under-rated lorry in my book, went reasonably well, fairly quiet and comfortable, with an engine whose reliability was on a par with most other lorries, in fact it never let me down once.
Totally agree. I had a Eurostar 14-litre straight six with a Twin-splitter: did North Africa in it as well as the Arabian Gulf. Engine, gearbox and drive-line superb, everything from the chassis up was comfortable but built with tinsel and fairy dust. I also agree that the 14-litre straight-six ■■■■■■■ was an excellent engine in comparison. Robert 
