hi all anyone got any pics of a tm registration cpk974t tks
newmercman:
The 4400 was introduced to meet the power to weight requirements of the Italian market, find out when that law was introduced and that will tell you when the 71s changed to 92s.
I think the Italian market just saw something which was already there,before 1980 at least,to meet its needs with the upgrade to turbo 92 series also applying to the 6 cylinder engines too certainly of which I can remember on our build list well before that time. 
As I’ve said from memory the upgrade to 92 series spec was not of Bedford’s doing and driven by a widespread obvious realisation,in more enlightened markets,that Bedford had simply chosen the wrong engine in the form of the non turbo 71 series. 
.While even the turbo 71’s ( would ) also have been made obsolete in that regard by the 92 series.Hence that was over looked by the upgrading operation which I’ve described on the basis of lets get the ‘right’ engine in it ASAP.By which time sadly it was all too late and the damage to the truck’s torque and fuel efficiency reputation,by the non turbo 71 series,was already done. 
newmercman:
The 4400 was introduced to meet the power to weight requirements of the Italian market, find out when that law was introduced and that will tell you when the 71s changed to 92s.
Here ya go mate:
Volvo, Mercedes and Fiat all had their 352 bhp engines, but no mention of Bedford. You would have thought a GB magazine would be keen to report on a potential export success, and a GB maker would be keen to get its brave foreign exploits into print, but nothing is there, so we must assume there was nothing.
Later, however:
This is as early a reference to a TM4400 that I can find. If anyone can find the 1978 Turin Show report, that will narrow down the 4400’s introduction date further. Geoffrey, are you in the mood to do some proper research for once?
[zb]
anorak:newmercman:
The 4400 was introduced to meet the power to weight requirements of the Italian market, find out when that law was introduced and that will tell you when the 71s changed to 92s.Here ya go mate:
1
Volvo, Mercedes and Fiat all had their 352 bhp engines, but no mention of Bedford. You would have thought a GB magazine would be keen to report on a potential export success, and a GB maker would be keen to get its brave foreign exploits into print, but nothing is there, so we must assume there was nothing.Later, however:
0
This is as early a reference to a TM4400 that I can find. If anyone can find the 1978 Turin Show report, that will narrow down the 4400’s introduction date further. Geoffrey, are you in the mood to do some proper research for once?
Check out the wording attached to the pic.IE as of at least late Spring '79 Another British manufacturer ‘‘doing well’’ ‘‘is’’ Bedford.The 4400 ‘‘was’ ( IE past tense ) designed ( and logically therefore ‘already’ having ‘been’ introduced’ and ‘available’ in the market ‘before’ ‘that’ point in time ) .
As opposed to another Brit manufacturer ‘’ hoping to do well’’ with the 4400.The newly introduced demonstrator of which is being shown here for the first time ‘ready for’ its market launch.( IE future tense )
The only thing I can really help with in that regard ( so far ) ,without further information,is just my reasonably clear memory of being involved with the turbo 92 series engined TM’s from,what I’m guessing was,probably their first availability.Which says as of '79 it certainly is a case of ‘was’ designed and introduced as a better late than never upgrade to the previous 71 series powered TM options ( the important bit in that regard being not by Bedford ) and at ‘that’ point in time ‘already’ well into production/availability.
Being that the upgrade in question involved ‘both’ the 6 and 8 cylinder variants,I personally don’t think it was anything specifically to do with just satisfying the Italian market for top weight trucks but numerous export market demands especially the potential demands of the drawbar prime mover sector in Scandinavia and New Zealand for example.In addition to hopefully possibly winning the domestic market around to the idea that the Detroit engine wasn’t the inefficient fuel hungry liability which the relatively torque challenged non turbo 71 series obviously made a reputation for.In that regard there is at least one UK example of the 4400 documented here which shows the 8v92 as being very close in average fuel use to documented reports of the E290 ■■■■■■■ in service.All that lumbered with a 9 speed Fuller when as we know the Detroit was more engine speed critical in that regard than the ■■■■■■■ was.Bearing in mind that electronic injection was in the pipeline regarding the 92 series too.
In addition to obviously making nutter fast fire trucks. 
In which case it’s my guess that Bedford probably just put two and two together and ‘then’ decided to join the party.While just officially,as opposed to unofficially,going for the Italian amongst other export markets in doing so,as part of that.
Meanwhile I’d guess that reference to the introduction of the 8v92 4400 suggested as being in the past tense in May 1979 is as close as we’ll get so far in showing that it was well into being a wild child of the 1970’s.At least without some new information.Which I’m guessing would show that Tricentrol’s input was probably the key in this case not Bedford’s. 
Half a page of nothing. Just find evidence to support your arguments. Until then, stop making a fool of yourself, because it is beyond boring.
If you mean there’s the slightest chance of me being able to find and print all the minutes of Tricentrol’s management meetings from 1974 to 1979,concerning its future plans for the TM and build records of every TM it upgraded from non turbo 71 series to turbo 92 series,dream on.As for half a page of nothing have you thought that it might just be of interest to others although obviously not yourself.
Carryfast:
If you mean there’s the slightest chance of me being able to find and print all the minutes of Tricentrol’s management meetings from 1974 to 1979,concerning its future plans for the TM and build records of every TM it upgraded from non turbo 71 series to turbo 92 series,dream on.As for half a page of nothing have you thought that it might just be of interest to others although obviously not yourself.
Just find out when the 92 series was introduced into the TM range. I’ve already narrowed it down to 1978 or '79. Do the rest of the work yourself, if you are capable.
I will probably regret asking this but did Bedford offer the ■■■■■■■ L10 as an engine option? We had an AWD (TM type cab of course) fitted with one and a contractor at our quarry had a TL cabbed six wheeler with an L10 so I just wondered if Bedford had offered it?
Pete.
Yes, they had to start fitting ■■■■■■■ engines to sell them, no one could afford to run the fuel drinking 2 stroke 
windrush:
I will probably regret asking this but did Bedford offer the ■■■■■■■ L10 as an engine option? We had an AWD (TM type cab of course) fitted with one and a contractor at our quarry had a TL cabbed six wheeler with an L10 so I just wondered if Bedford had offered it?Pete.
Yes, you could have a ■■■■■■■ L10 290 in a Bedford TM, but I believe this came a bit later, around '83.
Here’s an advert for the L10-powered TM. Robert
Thank you Trev and Robert, certainly a better option for UK operations I would imagine.
Pete.
Hey, Italian law came in '77, but if Bedford was already on the first show■■? ford came later they offered the NTC 340 with 352HP and daf came a year later too.
Will show about that show witha print, but have to look for the book maybe next week.
Eric,
tiptop495:
Hey, Italian law came in '77, but if Bedford was already on the first show■■? ford came later they offered the NTC 340 with 352HP and daf came a year later too.
Will show about that show witha print, but have to look for the book maybe next week.Eric,
I look forward to seeing that.
So far, we have seen that there were no 92 series Detroit TMs at the 1978 Earls Court Show in November of that year (although their fancy concept tractor did have a 71 series engine). There was a TM4400 at the Turin Show in May 1979, so we can safely assume that that model was launched sometime between those dates.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
If you mean there’s the slightest chance of me being able to find and print all the minutes of Tricentrol’s management meetings from 1974 to 1979,concerning its future plans for the TM and build records of every TM it upgraded from non turbo 71 series to turbo 92 series,dream on.As for half a page of nothing have you thought that it might just be of interest to others although obviously not yourself.Just find out when the 92 series was introduced into the TM range. I’ve already narrowed it down to 1978 or '79. Do the rest of the work yourself, if you are capable.
As I said splitting hairs between 77-79 and then trying to prove the former date v the latter on the basis of proof beyond doubt isn’t going to be realistically do able.When,as I said,the upgrade in question wasn’t of Bedford’s doing in the first instance and was done outside of the official factory product listing on an outsourced basis.
IE the turbo 92 series never was 'introduced into the factory listed ‘TM range’.It was only ‘introduced’ on a ‘if’ they ask for it we’ll find someone else who’ll do it basis. Which in this case from memory was Tricentrol.
The resulting ‘specials’ were only ‘later’ ‘then’ put into the official product listing as and when Bedford felt like it.Which in the case of the 4400 at least and as confirmed by the above motor show report description seems like sometime before 1979.Although having been ‘available’ to special order before that and before resorting to any outsourced ■■■■■■■ options.Which isn’t surprising being that the resort to ■■■■■■■ power defeated the whole business case for the TM in being an in house engined product with inevitable results from that point.
In which case I’d reverse your orders in saying it is up to you to find evidence which shows that the date of 1977,as being the first year of ‘availability’ of 92 series powered TM’s,as shown in the Scandinavian article,is wrong.
Whatever the date the fact is Bedford had an F12 killer,amongst others,in the form of the turbo 8v92 powered TM,in its armoury before 1980.
[zb]
anorak:tiptop495:
Hey, Italian law came in '77, but if Bedford was already on the first show■■? ford came later they offered the NTC 340 with 352HP and daf came a year later too.
Will show about that show witha print, but have to look for the book maybe next week.Eric,
I look forward to seeing that.
So far, we have seen that there were no 92 series Detroit TMs at the 1978 Earls Court Show in November of that year (although their fancy concept tractor did have a 71 series engine). There was a TM4400 at the Turin Show in May 1979, so we can safely assume that that model was launched sometime between those dates.
Hey, or maybe the TM had a converted 71 series for the Italian market for spell, As Ford had the NTC with 352HP for a while.
Sorry to let you waiting a week.
Eric,
Trev_H:
Yes, they had to start fitting ■■■■■■■ engines to sell them, no one could afford to run the fuel drinking 2 stroke
The sad fact being as I said the fuel drinking Detroit powered TM’s got their reputation from the non turbo 71 series not the turbo 92.While we’ve got a documented report from a road tester who seems to have approached the subject on the same basis.In firstly not differentiating between the non turbo 71 series which was certainly developed during a time when fuel costs didn’t matter at all.In which case it would have been the 12v71 buzzin dozen which was the power unit of choice.As opposed to the turbo 92 series which can really be seen as Detroit’s answer to the big cam ■■■■■■■ except Detroit got there first. Also seemingly confirmed by the suggestion in the testers report that a truck with a torque peak well below 1,500 rpm and a reasonably flat curve even below that needed to be downshifted at 1,500 rpm. 
The fact that in addition to all that it was lumbered with a 9 speed box but still managed to return almost 6 mpg at 40t gross shows that the thing was anything but a derv guzzler by the standards of the day.
tiptop495:
Hey, or maybe the TM had a converted 71 series for the Italian market for spell, As Ford had the NTC with 352HP for a while.
That’s what I was thinking. If they had had the 8v92 engine in a chassis prior to 1979, surely their 1978 show concept tractor would have had that engine in it. It would have been daft to show a “vehicle of the future” with an obsolete engine.
tiptop495:
Sorry to let you waiting a week.Eric,
Do not apologise- if people have good stuff to post, we can look forward to it!
passed my test in one didnt know much about them it was a big rig to me then and still remember the old girl getting me thru 1st time and on the road to many adventures
