mrken:
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 .
Did the same trick with mine, Magnums and 3 series Scanias were the same 
I’m surprised the cab on the Eurostar was a rotbox. Fiat cars of the period had overcome the tinworm problem, by using zinc-coated steel and, presumably, waterproof paint.
[zb]
anorak:
I’m surprised the cab on the Eurostar was a rotbox. Fiat cars of the period had overcome the tinworm problem, by using zinc-coated steel and, presumably, waterproof paint.
It wasn’t a rot-box, it was just that the build-quality was poor. Fittings were flimsy so curtain-rails fell in your lap, doors blew off in high winds, cupboards and fittings fell to bits and even things like turbos, air-driers and starter motors tended to be vulnerable to dropping off - but the engine never stopped, the gearbox never failed and the chassis was as strong as you like; and the whole thing stopped with the aid of front disc breaks. It was an animal in the wrong hands! Robert 
For all their well deserved bad press on tin worm, the paint they used on their chassis was probably stronger than the chassis itself 
robert1952:
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
0
It was a shame about the poor/flimsy/cheap finish on the interior because the space in them was fantastic I thought, I had 1 on demo for a week & it was like living/working in a Dance-Hall 
. Regards Chris
newmercman:
For all their well deserved bad press on tin worm, the paint they used on their chassis was probably stronger than the chassis itself
There’s another thing- the original factory paint on the chassis was almost like new when the cab had become uneconomical to patch up any further. I agree about the space, the Eurotech was just perfect for me on multi drop with no nights out. I’d like a pound for every time I snatched a 45 break on that bunk!
[zb]
anorak: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.
Evening all, perhaps a little background information may help the sceptics regarding Fiat/Unic, and engine development…(and because this is Mr AECs thread I will keep it brief…a longer summary is possible , if required)!
The connection with Fiat…1952 Unic was acquired by Groupe Simca…the family of Henri Pegozzi, heavily supported by the Agnelli Family, who owned Fiat SPA. 1956 Unic had acquired the French operation of Suisse lorry builder Saurer…not a happy period…but the legacy was the adoption by Unic of the Saurer direct injection system. This yielded an increase in HP of 20%, and a torque increase of 30%, plus cleaner exhausts. The new engine range was introduced 1966, with 4 cylinder, M32S @135hp, M52S @165hp, M42S, @200hp, and the V8, M62S, of 10.77 litres, (119x121mm) , @270 hp@2600rpm, and 84m kg, @1400 rpm . And the whole engine weighed only 910kgs!
1966 saw Unic become part of Fiat SPA, (FFSA, Fiat France Societe Anonyme), and a rationalisation of models, but the V8 grew under Jacque Vendammes direction to to 14.88 litres, and 340 sae hp.The V8 85S, with more to come....... and "quirky" France only vehicles, like the 70s tilt cab version of Fiats standard cab, engineered by Geneve, who had created perhaps Europes most ugly cab in the T270 version , over the dream like Unic v8, and later the Bernard Mack! By 1969, over 4000 V8s had been delivered, and 69 saw Jacques Vandammes upgrade to 14,88 litres the V8 85S @340 sae hp. And more was to come…
But Fiat were to rationalise production, future designs for the V serie engines was, (as were many design staff), to relocate toTurin. The Unic plant was to become manufacturing base to the straight 6, 13 litre, a real French design, and as ROF states, bomb proof.
The Fiat V8 grew from Turin, but its design ethos, and evolvement came from France. That it was the most underated V engine from European manufacturers is true…that it was potentially the best, I think is without doubt, and matched to a 13 speed Fuller in a 190, (in the UK 170), chassis, what a drivers dream…a real stonking, fire breathing hooligan love affair…yes I rated them, and how!
Back to the Bollinger,
Cheerio for now, (and apologies to the AEC fans for trespassing on their thread…why with all our superb engineering brains did we never build a V8 like this■■?
Saviem:
[zb]
anorak: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.
The Fiat V8 grew from Turin, but its design ethos, and evolvement came from France. That it was the most underated V engine from European manufacturers is true…that it was potentially the best, I think is without doubt, and matched to a 13 speed Fuller in a 190, (in the UK 170), chassis, what a drivers dream…a real stonking, fire breathing hooligan love affair…yes I rated them, and how!
Back to the Bollinger,
Cheerio for now, (and apologies to the AEC fans for trespassing on their thread…why with all our superb engineering brains did we never build a V8 like this■■?
Probably because although we had the superb engineering brains we didn’t have enough superb customers who wanted to buy a stonking,fire breathing,drivers dream made for flying up mountains.Which is why we had the Gardner 8LXB instead. 
Seriously I think the 17 litre capacity probably had a lot to do with it being superior to the AEC effort and just about every other V8 fitted to a truck ( maybe with the exception of the 8V92 and the new Scania V8 ) because a we all know if you want a good V8 with a good stroke measurement you need a good overall capacity to work with to get it.I’m guessing that most of the extra capacity over the smaller engine it seems to have been based on is made up of a longer stroke without compromising the bore size to a great degree.
I had the silly ECMT removed from my 520 which left s standard twin splitter. It was possible, but not recommended, to use high split only and use it as a four speed H pattern box, it wouldn’t do clutch life or mpg much good, but the engine would easily cope and accelerate like a normal lorry from tickover to peak torque, then it would take off like a scalded cat to the red line.
Anybody having had the pleasure of driving a FIAT V8 will be a big fan as they were a lot of fun 
newmercman:
I had the silly ECMT removed from my 520 which left s standard twin splitter. It was possible, but not recommended, to use high split only and use it as a four speed H pattern box, it wouldn’t do clutch life or mpg much good, but the engine would easily cope and accelerate like a normal lorry from tickover to peak torque, then it would take off like a scalded cat to the red line.Anybody having had the pleasure of driving a FIAT V8 will be a big fan as they were a lot of fun
Hiya…just while we’er talking V8 Fiat engines. a friend of mine has the 70 ton double drive turbo star that i think Mcgoven,s
run on the muck job out of London(iicr a girl drove it) well he’s restored the Fiat but needs a compressor its got a water leak,
he,s asked before with no result. any help he would appreciate… he also has a Eurostar,that goes like the wind, it must do 100 mph.
John
Saviem:
…The new engine range was introduced 1966, with 4 cylinder, M32S @135hp, M52S @165hp, M42S, @200hp, and the V8, M62S, of 10.77 litres, (119x121mm) , @270 hp@2600rpm, and 84m kg, @1400 rpm . And the whole engine weighed only 910kgs!…By 1969, over 4000 V8s had been delivered, and 69 saw Jacques Vandamme`s upgrade to 14,88 litres the V8 85S @340 sae hp. And more was to come…
…The Fiat V8 grew from Turin, but its design ethos, and evolvement came from France. That it was the most underated V engine from European manufacturers is true…that it was potentially the best, I think is without doubt, and matched to a 13 speed Fuller in a 190, (in the UK 170), chassis, what a drivers dream…a real stonking, fire breathing hooligan love affair…yes I rated them, and how!
Back to the Bollinger,
Cheerio for now, (and apologies to the AEC fans for trespassing on their thread…why with all our superb engineering brains did we never build a V8 like this■■?
To answer your last question, we did- the AEC V8 was GB’s Unic M62s/85s engine. The AEC’s capacity- 13 litres- put it bang in between the sizes of the two successful Unic designs. If you read the article that Gingerfold sent to me (ask him for a copy- it’s very good), you will see the work of one “superb engineering brain.” If you consider that:
- He was working on engines which were already in production.
- His research was only the beginning of the process of finding a solution to the problem (in that case, excessive noise),
you may conclude that there were too few brains employed in the design of the engine.
I believe that this encapsulates the root of the failure- the notion that Britain is/was awash with superb engineers is a myth.
3300John:
Hiya…just while we’er talking V8 Fiat engines. a friend of mine has the 70 ton double drive turbo star that i think Mcgoven,s
run on the muck job out of London(iicr a girl drove it) well he’s restored the Fiat but needs a compressor its got a water leak,
he,s asked before with no result. any help he would appreciate… he also has a Eurostar,that goes like the wind, it must do 100 mph.
John
He might have some luck here:
truck-italia-forum.com/BB3/v … .php?f=121
It is a great forum. You have to become a member to read it.
[zb]
anorak:3300John:
Hiya…just while we’er talking V8 Fiat engines. a friend of mine has the 70 ton double drive turbo star that i think Mcgoven,s
run on the muck job out of London(iicr a girl drove it) well he’s restored the Fiat but needs a compressor its got a water leak,
he,s asked before with no result. any help he would appreciate… he also has a Eurostar,that goes like the wind, it must do 100 mph.
JohnHe might have some luck here:
truck-italia-forum.com/BB3/v … .php?f=121
It is a great forum. You have to become a member to read it.
Hiya …Thanks
newmercman:
I had the silly ECMT removed from my 520 which left s standard twin splitter. It was possible, but not recommended, to use high split only and use it as a four speed H pattern box, it wouldn’t do clutch life or mpg much good, but the engine would easily cope and accelerate like a normal lorry from tickover to peak torque, then it would take off like a scalded cat to the red line.Anybody having had the pleasure of driving a FIAT V8 will be a big fan as they were a lot of fun
It had legendary status in the truck engineering world without anyone having needed to drive on.Unfortunately I never had the chance to confirm it personally but the numbers speak for themselves in regards to a good sized V8.Get those basics right then everything else logically follows.
[zb]
anorak:Saviem:
…The new engine range was introduced 1966, with 4 cylinder, M32S @135hp, M52S @165hp, M42S, @200hp, and the V8, M62S, of 10.77 litres, (119x121mm) , @270 hp@2600rpm, and 84m kg, @1400 rpm . And the whole engine weighed only 910kgs!…By 1969, over 4000 V8s had been delivered, and 69 saw Jacques Vandamme`s upgrade to 14,88 litres the V8 85S @340 sae hp. And more was to come…
…The Fiat V8 grew from Turin, but its design ethos, and evolvement came from France. That it was the most underated V engine from European manufacturers is true…that it was potentially the best, I think is without doubt, and matched to a 13 speed Fuller in a 190, (in the UK 170), chassis, what a drivers dream…a real stonking, fire breathing hooligan love affair…yes I rated them, and how!
Back to the Bollinger,
Cheerio for now, (and apologies to the AEC fans for trespassing on their thread…why with all our superb engineering brains did we never build a V8 like this■■?
To answer your last question, we did- the AEC V8 was GB’s Unic M62s/85s engine. The AEC’s capacity- 13 litres- put it bang in between the sizes of the two successful Unic designs. If you read the article that Gingerfold sent to me (ask him for a copy- it’s very good), you will see the work of one “superb engineering brain.” If you consider that:
- He was working on engines which were already in production.
- His research was only the beginning of the process of finding a solution to the problem (in that case, excessive noise),
you may conclude that there were too few brains employed in the design of the engine.I believe that this encapsulates the root of the failure- the notion that Britain is/was awash with superb engineers is a myth.
It’s a bit difficult to understand how anyone can make a really ‘successful’ V8 at such small overall capacity limits.It’s also no surprise that we’re actually referring to the ‘success’ in this case of a 17 litre V8 not a 13 litre one.As for British engineering there’s enough evidence out there to show that they can be the best in the world given the right customers willing to pay the right price to pay for the job.The fact that in some cases,they might have developed a ( justifiable ) reputation,of telling anyone looking for a cheap job,to go elsewhere,or put up with a compromised design,certainly wouldn’t be a myth.IE you only get what you pay for.
answer your last question, we did- the AEC V8 was GB’s Unic M62s/85s engine. The AEC’s capacity- 13 litres- put it bang in between the sizes of the two successful Unic designs. If you read the article that Gingerfold sent to me (ask him for a copy- it’s very good), you will see the work of one “superb engineering brain.” If you consider that:
- He was working on engines which were already in production.
- His research was only the beginning of the process of finding a solution to the problem (in that case, excessive noise),
you may conclude that there were too few brains employed in the design of the engine.
I believe that this encapsulates the root of the failure- the notion that Britain is/was awash with superb engineers is a myth.
[/quote]
Evening all, no, sorry Anorak, you are wrong. And wrong on several accounts.
Prime reason for the failure of UK designed engines and components post WW2…
Inadequate funding to develop design to a satisfactory, (reliable), conclusion. A return on investment had to be made in short order.
Lack of investment in replacing/renewing tooling for production purposes.
Total and absolute lack of, (Governmental), awareness of the market place outside of “the Empire”. And what was taking place in those markets, and what was needed.
Engineering expertise dedicated to satisfying the “home” market demands, (the largest market in Europe) to the exclusion of all else.
Coupled with…legislative parameters that influenced, and totally dictated design, and production of the domestic product to the exclusion of suitability for any "exterior " market potential.(As an example the Willeme K301, apart from its Cottard cab, an AEC 470 7.685 litre Mercury 16 ton chassis cab, marketed in France as a 17 tonne 4x2…in a market where 4x2s were 19 tonners) total sales 63/64…50 odd units! Nowt wrong with the lorry…just wrong for the market!
Then overlay that lot with “class ridden” management, couple that with a luddite workforce, (and not without reason, for many had seen the horrors of all out war, and the ludicrous decisions, seemingly of the “upper class” leading to loss of life) A recipe and natural combination for in built conflict. Couple that with a general attitude of “the world owes us a living”, and a general isolationist attitude. Not condusive for success in Europe…an area many wished to forget! Let alone the Global market place.
Then let us not forget short term financing, the immediate need for return on capital investment by the “Institutional Shareholder”…perhaps the demon, and destruction of the UKs manufacturing base, whose (often unreasonable) demands plunged many a potentially successful company into ruin!
I would not conclude that any country in the World would have had “better” engineers…but that they, (and particularly post WW2 Europe), had better “enviroments” for those engineering brains to flex their expertise in is undeniable.
And do not vaunt the Scandanavian products success…for their collaboration with the Nazis during WW2 saw their National gross domestic product inflate by 20% per annum…the success of Volvo and Scania was due to the rigid policy of limiting the product range to simple ranges…not trying to follow the demands of individual sector segments in any given market place, and more so in Europes “bull market”, of the 60/80s, the United Kingdom.
As for the rest, (and I refer to Europe, for that seems to be the gist of our discussion), then the Marshall Plan would seem to have much to do with the success of European manufacturers, and the demise of our own!
Failure of individual product, and in turn manufacturers, I would not attribute to lack of engineering skill,expertise, or excellence, but more to the broad parameters I have outlined above.
But our engineering expertise could never have refined any product to the sublime pleasure of an 83 Bollinger…and that is where I am going now…(and there are many “older” French operators who would moan, and grumble about the early V8 Unic engine, just as we do about the V8 AEC)!!!
Cheerio for now.
Cheerio for now.
^ This is why I’m a fan of M. Saviem’s posts
Et moi.
Saviem:
…I would not conclude that any country in the World would have had “better” engineers…but that they, (and particularly post WW2 Europe), had better “enviroments” for those engineering brains to flex their expertise in is undeniable…Cheerio for now.
I would not disagree with the background arguments you quote, leading to the conclusion that GB has been a poor environment for engineers. One factor you do not mention is that European countries require engineers to have completed the necessary education before they are allowed to practice, just like doctors. Typically, this takes until age 25 or older, at which point you are at the start! In Britain, you can call yourself an engineer with no training or education at all. I have dealt with charlatans like this on many an occasion- most of the time, they can “wing it” on what they have picked up along the way, but they will never contribute to an improvement in a product or process. They hold the job up and the wage down. Experience alone is not enough, if progress is the goal.
The result of all of it is that British people who are clever enough to cope with the intellectual rigour of a proper engineering education are usually clever enough to do something easier and/or more lucrative. The result of that is that GB has a paucity of engineering talent, and the result of that is exemplified by the subject of this thread.
I’m off to glug a glass or two of mediocre ersatz claret.
The result of all of it is that British people who are clever enough to cope with the intellectual rigour of a proper engineering education are usually clever enough to do something easier and/or more lucrative.
Like running the family’s agricultural empire?
I’m sure I left that wooden spoon around here somewhere.