We get it Carryfast, you have a different idea of what classifies somebody as an engineer, tomato tomato, potato potato, who cares, it’s boring and if it persists another decent thread will be ruined 
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Maybe you’d better tell the army to remove the title REME from it’s inventory being that everyone in it’s ranks will need to be a design engineer who never actually uses any tools and/or machines except a draughtsman’s pencil and piece of paper or a computer.Old-fashioned terminology, that’s all it is- shorthand to cover all the trades.
Oddly enough, the MoD has stopped recruiting and training engineers, according to this:
gov.uk/defence-engineering- … ence-group
It doesn’t say anything there about changing the name of the REME to Royal Electrical and Mechanical Trades Group though.As for what is obviously all about the high flying whizz kids who are running the agenda of what the army buys as opposed to maintaining what it’s got.I think facts like the idea of aircraft carriers without catapults and having to equip the results with aircraft like the Harrier and the F35,not forgetting the idea of not armouring the decks of battleships like the Hood and designing ‘tanks’ like the Matilda I and Valentine etc etc ,shows just how good the forces acedemics are.As opposed to those within the ranks who actually do the work and know what’s needed to actually fight a war.
newmercman:
We get it Carryfast, you have a different idea of what classifies somebody as an engineer, tomato tomato, potato potato, who cares, it’s boring and if it persists another decent thread will be ruined
Fair enough nmm but at least be fair in also having a go at ZB.While I think my previous post referring to the AEC’s overall capacity flaw was ( very ) relevant in reply to gingerfold’s comment.
Carryfast:
newmercman:
We get it Carryfast, you have a different idea of what classifies somebody as an engineer, tomato tomato, potato potato, who cares, it’s boring and if it persists another decent thread will be ruinedFair enough nmm but at least be fair in also having a go at ZB.While I think my previous post referring to the AEC’s overall capacity flaw was ( very ) relevant in reply to gingerfold’s comment.
Anything to do with the engine is relevant, the rest of it is irrelevant 
It does take at least two people to have an argument, so here’s a little something you should all consider…
Arguing with a fool only proves that there are two 
newmercman:
…It does take at least two people to have an argument, so here’s a little something you should all consider…Arguing with a fool only proves that there are two
I would not argue with you on that score. 
Oh! no,has he escaped from the Leatherhead asylum again and screwed up another thread I’ll have a word with Matron about upping his daily dose of physic,that’ll keep him sat on the bog for most of the day 
Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
Oh! no,has he escaped from the Leatherhead asylum again and screwed up another thread
Please don’t do that Dennis, he will be spouting it from BOTH ends then… 
Pete.
windrush:
Bewick:
Oh! no,has he escaped from the Leatherhead asylum again and screwed up another threadPlease don’t do that Dennis, he will be spouting it from BOTH ends then…
Pete.
Would anyone notice any difference
You’ll give the lad a persecution complex.
Never mind!
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
We get it Carryfast, you have a different idea of what classifies somebody as an engineer, tomato tomato, potato potato, who cares, it’s boring and if it persists another decent thread will be ruinedFair enough nmm but at least be fair in also having a go at ZB.While I think my previous post referring to the AEC’s overall capacity flaw was ( very ) relevant in reply to gingerfold’s comment.
Anything to do with the engine is relevant, the rest of it is irrelevant
It does take at least two people to have an argument, so here’s a little something you should all consider…
Arguing with a fool only proves that there are two
Or it means that a V8 that’s too small for the job makes it into production and then the workers get the blame for it. 
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
We get it Carryfast, you have a different idea of what classifies somebody as an engineer, tomato tomato, potato potato, who cares, it’s boring and if it persists another decent thread will be ruinedFair enough nmm but at least be fair in also having a go at ZB.While I think my previous post referring to the AEC’s overall capacity flaw was ( very ) relevant in reply to gingerfold’s comment.
Anything to do with the engine is relevant, the rest of it is irrelevant
It does take at least two people to have an argument, so here’s a little something you should all consider…
Arguing with a fool only proves that there are two
Or it means that a V8 that’s too small for the job makes it into production and then the workers get the blame for it.
Yes youve got to hand it to Carryfast hes right again , Scanias original V8 wasn`t significantly bigger than AECs V8 and what a flop that was .13 TO 14 litres was way too small what were they thinking .Curiously development on both engines started in 1962 what different paths they eventually took .Obviously those boys from Scandinavia eventually took notice of the Leatherhead 1 and upped the capacity to 16 litres and that troublesome engine became a worldbeater
ramone:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
We get it Carryfast, you have a different idea of what classifies somebody as an engineer, tomato tomato, potato potato, who cares, it’s boring and if it persists another decent thread will be ruinedFair enough nmm but at least be fair in also having a go at ZB.While I think my previous post referring to the AEC’s overall capacity flaw was ( very ) relevant in reply to gingerfold’s comment.
Anything to do with the engine is relevant, the rest of it is irrelevant
It does take at least two people to have an argument, so here’s a little something you should all consider…
Arguing with a fool only proves that there are two
Or it means that a V8 that’s too small for the job makes it into production and then the workers get the blame for it.
Yes you
ve got to hand it to Carryfast hes right again , Scanias original V8 wasn`t significantly bigger than AECs V8 and what a flop that was .13 TO 14 litres was way too small what were they thinking .Curiously development on both engines started in 1962 what different paths they eventually took .Obviously those boys from Scandinavia eventually took notice of the Leatherhead 1 and upped the capacity to 16 litres and that troublesome engine became a worldbeater
I don’t think that Saviem was referring to the early Scania V8 with the description of stonking,fire breathing,driver’s dream.While if 13-14 litres was good enough that’s how Scania would have left it.As for the AEC V8 it’s not a even a case of 13-14 litres.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
We get it Carryfast, you have a different idea of what classifies somebody as an engineer, tomato tomato, potato potato, who cares, it’s boring and if it persists another decent thread will be ruinedFair enough nmm but at least be fair in also having a go at ZB.While I think my previous post referring to the AEC’s overall capacity flaw was ( very ) relevant in reply to gingerfold’s comment.
Anything to do with the engine is relevant, the rest of it is irrelevant
It does take at least two people to have an argument, so here’s a little something you should all consider…
Arguing with a fool only proves that there are two
Or it means that a V8 that’s too small for the job makes it into production and then the workers get the blame for it.
Yes you
ve got to hand it to Carryfast hes right again , Scanias original V8 wasn`t significantly bigger than AECs V8 and what a flop that was .13 TO 14 litres was way too small what were they thinking .Curiously development on both engines started in 1962 what different paths they eventually took .Obviously those boys from Scandinavia eventually took notice of the Leatherhead 1 and upped the capacity to 16 litres and that troublesome engine became a worldbeaterThat engine was the mighty FIAT V8
I don’t think that Saviem was referring to the early Scania V8 with the description of stonking,fire breathing,driver’s dream.While if 13-14 litres was good enough that’s how Scania would have left it.
newmercman:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
We get it Carryfast, you have a different idea of what classifies somebody as an engineer, tomato tomato, potato potato, who cares, it’s boring and if it persists another decent thread will be ruinedFair enough nmm but at least be fair in also having a go at ZB.While I think my previous post referring to the AEC’s overall capacity flaw was ( very ) relevant in reply to gingerfold’s comment.
Anything to do with the engine is relevant, the rest of it is irrelevant
It does take at least two people to have an argument, so here’s a little something you should all consider…
Arguing with a fool only proves that there are two
Or it means that a V8 that’s too small for the job makes it into production and then the workers get the blame for it.
Yes you
ve got to hand it to Carryfast hes right again , Scanias original V8 wasn`t significantly bigger than AECs V8 and what a flop that was .13 TO 14 litres was way too small what were they thinking .Curiously development on both engines started in 1962 what different paths they eventually took .Obviously those boys from Scandinavia eventually took notice of the Leatherhead 1 and upped the capacity to 16 litres and that troublesome engine became a worldbeaterThat engine was the mighty FIAT V8
I don’t think that Saviem was referring to the early Scania V8 with the description of stonking,fire breathing,driver’s dream.While if 13-14 litres was good enough that’s how Scania would have left it.
I can just imagine ZB’s whizz kids working out how to provide the FIAT’s stroke measurement but without going over 13 litres overall and then arguing that the result will be just as good.
ERF:
3300John:
rigsby:
when i drove for turner bros in the early 70s , they had a b series 6 wheeler with a walkthrough cab , the engine was underslung , i wonder what engine would have been . if andrew turner is on tnuk he might know . i wish i had taken more notice at the time . daveHiya rigsby…that may have been a dorman V6. ERF had a go at fitting that engine, i think the gearbox was near the
back axel it was called the m series I,ll ask Andrew at the next show i see him
JohnUnlikely to be an M Series if it was a 6 wheeler, but it could of had a tag axle fitted.
M Series were usually 16 Tonners with a remote shaft drive gearbox mounted half way down the chassis.
Externally identified from a B Series by the four headlamps being mounted in the bumper bar on the early ones.
The lorry Turner Bros ran was definitely a M Series six wheeler (6X4) It had, as stated by others, the gearbox remotely located down the chassis. The gearbox was connected to the clutch (engine) via a short prop. Best thing I’ve ever replaced the clutch on. It had a tipper body mounted, with fold in flat, drop sides, so it could do tip work or bags. As noise has been mentioned in another reply, I do seem to recall there was a lot of fan noise with it. Also seem to remember it wasn’t brilliant on fuel & I can’t recall why (haggled memory) but there was some issue with bending push rods ■■? They ran it later than the early 70s though. It was on a W plate (SRE 555W) So I assume it was registered 1980. I started my apprenticeship at Turners in 1982 & it was the newest lorry there, at the time, along with a W reg 8 wheeler but that was a normal B series with a standard inline 6, ■■■■■■■ in it.
ERF did make M series 6 wheeler’s, not many were made, but was offered throughout M series production. I believe a 6x4 example has been saved for preservation and is fitted with a V8 Perkins 540. think it was once owned by a Water company when new. Chris.
Just to resurrect this topic again, the latest AEC Bulletin (received on Friday 4th July) contains quite a bit about this engine and the politics within the Leyland empire that led to its demise. Written by Bob Fryars it can be taken as the definitive record as he was one of the senior engineering managers at firstly AEC and then Leyland. I haven’t digested all of it yet, but one interesting comment Mr Fryars makes concerns the cylinder bore and stroke dimensions. It appears that ■■■■■■■ had patented what they (and AEC) believed to be the optimum stroke / bore dimensions for a V8 diesel, so AEC had to use what stroke / bore dimensions were left, so to speak, to avoid infringing the ■■■■■■■ patents, or alternatively pay royalties to ■■■■■■■■ Nevertheless, ■■■■■■■ also did not make a successful job of its V8 in the 1960s. I will pick out some of the other gems that Mr Fryars has written, I only wish that he would commit to paper in a book form his working life at AEC and Leyland, it would be fascinating, especially during the Lord Stokes era.
gingerfold:
Just to resurrect this topic again, the latest AEC Bulletin (received on Friday 4th July) contains quite a bit about this engine and the politics within the Leyland empire that led to its demise. Written by Bob Fryars it can be taken as the definitive record as he was one of the senior engineering managers at firstly AEC and then Leyland. I haven’t digested all of it yet, but one interesting comment Mr Fryars makes concerns the cylinder bore and stroke dimensions. It appears that ■■■■■■■ had patented what they (and AEC) believed to be the optimum stroke / bore dimensions for a V8 diesel, so AEC had to use what stroke / bore dimensions were left, so to speak, to avoid infringing the ■■■■■■■ patents, or alternatively pay royalties to ■■■■■■■■ Nevertheless, ■■■■■■■ also did not make a successful job of its V8 in the 1960s. I will pick out some of the other gems that Mr Fryars has written, I only wish that he would commit to paper in a book form his working life at AEC and Leyland, it would be fascinating, especially during the Lord Stokes era.
I have never heard of a anyone trying to patent a number. ■■■■■■■ must have been very sure of their analysis, to protect a feature, or combination of features, at one size, or within a defined band, only. Does the article give the patent number? I would love to read it. It would not infringe the AEC Bulletin’s copyright for you to post it, since patents are already in the public domain. That was an intellectual property joke. I’ll get me coat.
Mr. Fryars sounds like just the sort of bloke this forum needs- a proper engineer who was there at the time, with a role in creating the things that we all enjoy discussing. If he does not want the hassle of writing a book, could you persuade him to start posting on here?
From the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Just found a survey of 12/1965 in which an overview has been given about progress of stroke-bore-ratio:
1929 1,450
1939 1,344
1951 1,130
1956 0,908
1965 0,800
I agree the stroke-bore-ratio is strange to patent…by the way…■■■■■■■ focussed too much (perhaps
out of the agreement with KRUPP-KRAWA in Essen) to keep the V6/V8 (VIM/VINE etc) for installations in
KRUPP-trucks, which ceased production of trucks in 1968 and the liabilities were ‘sold’ to Mercedes-Benz,
and some stock of cabs to Seddon-Atkinson. Till 1965 a total of 4.500 V6/V8 were manufactured out of the
license-agreement for Krupp-■■■■■■■■ If needed I can input some technical schemes as well as drawings.
ERF-Continental:
From the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Just found a survey of 12/1965 in which an overview has been given about progress of stroke-bore-ratio:
1929 1,450
1939 1,344
1951 1,130
1956 0,908
1965 0,800I agree the stroke-bore-ratio is strange to patent…by the way…■■■■■■■ focussed too much (perhaps
out of the agreement with KRUPP-KRAWA in Essen) to keep the V6/V8 (VIM/VINE etc) for installations in
KRUPP-trucks, which ceased production of trucks in 1968 and the liabilities were ‘sold’ to Mercedes-Benz,
and some stock of cabs to Seddon-Atkinson. Till 1965 a total of 4.500 V6/V8 were manufactured out of the
license-agreement for Krupp-■■■■■■■■ If needed I may input sometechnical schemes as well as drawings.
Somewhere in this or the ■■■■■■■ thread, there is mention of bore/stroke ratios of V8 diesels in the 1960s and ‘70s. IIRC, Unic and Fiat V8s were both oversquare, while the rest were the other way inclined. If ■■■■■■■ were successful in getting a patent granted for some combination of these parameters, the range of their patent was not wide enough to deny their competitors the freedom to engineer a variety of successful engines. Even if ■■■■■■■■ own V8 had been a success itself, they would have been mad to think that those other manufacturers could not compete with it, by using a diffrent combination of bore and stroke.
Please post the schemes/drawings!