Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE
Firstly you’re comparing apples and oranges in the form of turbocharged engines v naturally aspirated ones and the reason why the 8LXB was such a boat anchor was because of that reason which actually made it’s specific torque output hopeless by comparison.However it’s no good going to all the trouble of making an engine run reliably with forced induction,together with the resulting high specific torque output,and then throw the advantage away by using a small engine capacity which defeats the object in regards to both reliability and making the most of the advantage created by forced induction.When the idea is to optimise that advantage by using it together with a reasonable bore and stroke measurement and therefore a reasonably large overall capacity.
Which explains where we are now ever since the first generations of the idea,in the form of examples like the Volvo F10/12/16,DAF 2800/3600/95/XF,6 and 8 cylinder Scanias and numerous 14 litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■ variants etc etc over the years have showed that it’s the relatively large capacity,turbocharged,engine idea,as opposed to small higher speed diesels in the form of examples like the Volvo F7 and DAF 2300/2500,which was,and still is,the way to go to get the best combination of productivety,efficiency and reliability,at least for 24-30 t + operations and the Leyland 500 idea was no exception to that.
While the issue seems to confirm,at least in my view,that Dr Fogg’s idea,concerning the documented fixed head AEC 700 ( as opposed to the smaller Leyland 500 ),was all about trying to get ahead in that high specific torque output race by combining the idea of high boost levels with a reasonably sized engine,having used the fixed head idea as a way of circumventing the obvious foreseeable possibility of resulting block to head joint problems. 
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE
Firstly you’re comparing apples and oranges in the form of turbocharged engines v naturally aspirated ones and the reason why the 8LXB was such a boat anchor was because of that reason which actually made it’s specific torque output hopeless by comparison.However it’s no good going to all the trouble of making an engine run reliably with forced induction,together with the resulting high specific torque output,and then throw the advantage away by using a small engine capacity which defeats the object in regards to both reliability and making the most of the advantage created by forced induction.When the idea is to optimise that advantage by using it together with a reasonable bore and stroke measurement and therefore a reasonably large overall capacity.
Which explains where we are now ever since the first generations of the idea,in the form of examples like the Volvo F10/12/16,DAF 2800/3600/95/XF,6 and 8 cylinder Scanias and numerous 14 litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■ variants etc etc over the years have showed that it’s the relatively large capacity,turbocharged,engine idea,as opposed to small higher speed diesels in the form of examples like the Volvo F7 and DAF 2300/2500,which was,and still is,the way to go to get the best combination of productivety,efficiency and reliability,at least for 24-30 t + operations and the Leyland 500 idea was no exception to that.
While the issue seems to confirm,at least in my view,that Dr Fogg’s idea,concerning the documented fixed head AEC 700 ( as opposed to the smaller Leyland 500 ),was all about trying to get ahead in that high specific torque output race by combining the idea of high boost levels with a reasonably sized engine,having used the fixed head idea as a way of circumventing the obvious foreseeable possibility of resulting block to head joint problems.
So CF if you had run a haulage company in the mid `70s and won a large contract, but part of that contract was an insistence that you had vehicles that could carry 22 tons payload what vehicles would you operate ■■?
Best Ergo? How about the Mammoth Minor? Between 1965 to 1968 it was virtually impossible to run legally within the outer axle overall spread dimensions on four axles, and comply with axle weight limits, although it was theoretically possible to achieve 32 tons gvw. Hence the Mammoth Minor was one way of getting around it, an additional light axle made 32 tons gvw easily achievable.
gingerfold:
Best Ergo? How about the Mammoth Minor? Between 1965 to 1968 it was virtually impossible to run legally within the outer axle overall spread dimensions on four axles, and comply with axle weight limits, although it was theoretically possible to achieve 32 tons gvw. Hence the Mammoth Minor was one way of getting around it, an additional light axle made 32 tons gvw easily achievable.
I bet they were a pig to reverse though if they didnt have power steering
ramone:
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE
Firstly you’re comparing apples and oranges in the form of turbocharged engines v naturally aspirated ones and the reason why the 8LXB was such a boat anchor was because of that reason which actually made it’s specific torque output hopeless by comparison.However it’s no good going to all the trouble of making an engine run reliably with forced induction,together with the resulting high specific torque output,and then throw the advantage away by using a small engine capacity which defeats the object in regards to both reliability and making the most of the advantage created by forced induction.When the idea is to optimise that advantage by using it together with a reasonable bore and stroke measurement and therefore a reasonably large overall capacity.
Which explains where we are now ever since the first generations of the idea,in the form of examples like the Volvo F10/12/16,DAF 2800/3600/95/XF,6 and 8 cylinder Scanias and numerous 14 litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■ variants etc etc over the years have showed that it’s the relatively large capacity,turbocharged,engine idea,as opposed to small higher speed diesels in the form of examples like the Volvo F7 and DAF 2300/2500,which was,and still is,the way to go to get the best combination of productivety,efficiency and reliability,at least for 24-30 t + operations and the Leyland 500 idea was no exception to that.
While the issue seems to confirm,at least in my view,that Dr Fogg’s idea,concerning the documented fixed head AEC 700 ( as opposed to the smaller Leyland 500 ),was all about trying to get ahead in that high specific torque output race by combining the idea of high boost levels with a reasonably sized engine,having used the fixed head idea as a way of circumventing the obvious foreseeable possibility of resulting block to head joint problems.
So CF if you had run a haulage company in the mid `70s and won a large contract, but part of that contract was an insistence that you had vehicles that could carry 22 tons payload what vehicles would you operate ■■?
Firstly I think there seems to be a lot of exaggeration concerning the so called weight ‘advantages’ of using a smaller engine v the efficiency,productivety,durabilty advantages of using a larger one.It seems obvious that in the case of engine weights it’s all about steer axle weight and in the real world it’s unlikely that the weight distribution of a load will be that critical in regards to steer axle weight and/or be possible to place to make use of,what is a relatively small engine weight advantage anyway,at least in terms of long haul uk/international general haulage work which was supposedly one of the main market design aims of the 500.
As for me,if it was a case of choosing the best Leyland product,I’d have followed BRS example and gone for the Crusader with the most powerful Rolls option possible which seems to have been the 305 and let the weight issue ‘look after itself’.Although it would have been interesting to have seen just what Dr Fogg’s fixed head AEC 700 could have done running at turbocharger boost levels up to the limits of it’s components without the block to head joint issue to worry about. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE
Firstly you’re comparing apples and oranges in the form of turbocharged engines v naturally aspirated ones and the reason why the 8LXB was such a boat anchor was because of that reason which actually made it’s specific torque output hopeless by comparison.However it’s no good going to all the trouble of making an engine run reliably with forced induction,together with the resulting high specific torque output,and then throw the advantage away by using a small engine capacity which defeats the object in regards to both reliability and making the most of the advantage created by forced induction.When the idea is to optimise that advantage by using it together with a reasonable bore and stroke measurement and therefore a reasonably large overall capacity.
Which explains where we are now ever since the first generations of the idea,in the form of examples like the Volvo F10/12/16,DAF 2800/3600/95/XF,6 and 8 cylinder Scanias and numerous 14 litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■ variants etc etc over the years have showed that it’s the relatively large capacity,turbocharged,engine idea,as opposed to small higher speed diesels in the form of examples like the Volvo F7 and DAF 2300/2500,which was,and still is,the way to go to get the best combination of productivety,efficiency and reliability,at least for 24-30 t + operations and the Leyland 500 idea was no exception to that.
While the issue seems to confirm,at least in my view,that Dr Fogg’s idea,concerning the documented fixed head AEC 700 ( as opposed to the smaller Leyland 500 ),was all about trying to get ahead in that high specific torque output race by combining the idea of high boost levels with a reasonably sized engine,having used the fixed head idea as a way of circumventing the obvious foreseeable possibility of resulting block to head joint problems.
So CF if you had run a haulage company in the mid `70s and won a large contract, but part of that contract was an insistence that you had vehicles that could carry 22 tons payload what vehicles would you operate ■■?
Firstly I think there seems to be a lot of exaggeration concerning the so called weight ‘advantages’ of using a smaller engine v the efficiency,productivety,durabilty advantages of using a larger one.It seems obvious that in the case of engine weights it’s all about steer axle weight and in the real world it’s unlikely that the weight distribution of a load will be that critical in regards to steer axle weight and/or be possible to place to make use of,what is a relatively small engine weight advantage anyway,at least in terms of long haul uk/international general haulage work which was supposedly one of the main market design aims of the 500.
As for me,if it was a case of choosing the best Leyland product,I’d have followed BRS example and gone for the Crusader with the most powerful Rolls option possible which seems to have been the 305 and let the weight issue ‘look after itself’.Although it would have been interesting to have seen just what Dr Fogg’s fixed head AEC 700 could have done running at turbocharger boost levels up to the limits of it’s components without the block to head joint issue to worry about.
I think youll find that magical 22 ton payload was very much in demand in the 70s and thats probably why the Leyland products and the F86 were so popular at that time .Theres no way you could have used the 2800 or the 110/111 or the F88/F10 and achieved 22 tons payload and id be very suprised if the Crusader would have got there either.The mandator my dad drove could carry 22.5 tons payload and the F86 was very similar
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE
Firstly you’re comparing apples and oranges in the form of turbocharged engines v naturally aspirated ones and the reason why the 8LXB was such a boat anchor was because of that reason which actually made it’s specific torque output hopeless by comparison.However it’s no good going to all the trouble of making an engine run reliably with forced induction,together with the resulting high specific torque output,and then throw the advantage away by using a small engine capacity which defeats the object in regards to both reliability and making the most of the advantage created by forced induction.When the idea is to optimise that advantage by using it together with a reasonable bore and stroke measurement and therefore a reasonably large overall capacity.
Which explains where we are now ever since the first generations of the idea,in the form of examples like the Volvo F10/12/16,DAF 2800/3600/95/XF,6 and 8 cylinder Scanias and numerous 14 litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■ variants etc etc over the years have showed that it’s the relatively large capacity,turbocharged,engine idea,as opposed to small higher speed diesels in the form of examples like the Volvo F7 and DAF 2300/2500,which was,and still is,the way to go to get the best combination of productivety,efficiency and reliability,at least for 24-30 t + operations and the Leyland 500 idea was no exception to that.
While the issue seems to confirm,at least in my view,that Dr Fogg’s idea,concerning the documented fixed head AEC 700 ( as opposed to the smaller Leyland 500 ),was all about trying to get ahead in that high specific torque output race by combining the idea of high boost levels with a reasonably sized engine,having used the fixed head idea as a way of circumventing the obvious foreseeable possibility of resulting block to head joint problems.
So CF if you had run a haulage company in the mid `70s and won a large contract, but part of that contract was an insistence that you had vehicles that could carry 22 tons payload what vehicles would you operate ■■?
Firstly I think there seems to be a lot of exaggeration concerning the so called weight ‘advantages’ of using a smaller engine v the efficiency,productivety,durabilty advantages of using a larger one.It seems obvious that in the case of engine weights it’s all about steer axle weight and in the real world it’s unlikely that the weight distribution of a load will be that critical in regards to steer axle weight and/or be possible to place to make use of,what is a relatively small engine weight advantage anyway,at least in terms of long haul uk/international general haulage work which was supposedly one of the main market design aims of the 500.
As for me,if it was a case of choosing the best Leyland product,I’d have followed BRS example and gone for the Crusader with the most powerful Rolls option possible which seems to have been the 305 and let the weight issue ‘look after itself’.Although it would have been interesting to have seen just what Dr Fogg’s fixed head AEC 700 could have done running at turbocharger boost levels up to the limits of it’s components without the block to head joint issue to worry about.
I think youll find that magical 22 ton payload was very much in demand in the 70s and thats probably why the Leyland products and the F86 were so popular at that time .Theres no way you could have used the 2800 or the 110/111 or the F88/F10 and achieved 22 tons payload and id be very suprised if the Crusader would have got there either.The mandator my dad drove could carry 22.5 tons payload and the F86 was very similar
It’s ironic that we’re probably having the exact same discussion here now as that which probably took place back then between Dr Fogg working for AEC v Leyland’s management regarding the best option between using a relatively larger engine v a relatively smaller one.
It’s even more ironic that many of those who seem to have blamed Leyland for not allowing AEC to just get on with the job in the AEC ( and the Scammell ) way,then seem to support what actually happened in that AEC got lumbered by being involved to a large extent,and then inevitably suffered,by association,the long term results of,the Leyland Truck Group using retrograde Leyland cab and engine designs. 
Even more ironically the reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Leyland’s management wanting to wipe out AEC but actually being all about the fact that the money just wasn’t there to do anything better.
The fact is,both in the case of long haul cab design and heavy truck engine specifications,the reality of truck development history,over the years to date,seems to be,more or less,on Dr Fogg’s ( and my ) side of the argument in that both for cab design and engine design,bigger is generally better.Just as is the case by general definition of efficient heavy truck design.IE Volvo F16 or Scania 730 V8 60 t gross v 500 powered 32 t gross ERGO cabbed Leyland.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE
Firstly you’re comparing apples and oranges in the form of turbocharged engines v naturally aspirated ones and the reason why the 8LXB was such a boat anchor was because of that reason which actually made it’s specific torque output hopeless by comparison.However it’s no good going to all the trouble of making an engine run reliably with forced induction,together with the resulting high specific torque output,and then throw the advantage away by using a small engine capacity which defeats the object in regards to both reliability and making the most of the advantage created by forced induction.When the idea is to optimise that advantage by using it together with a reasonable bore and stroke measurement and therefore a reasonably large overall capacity.
Which explains where we are now ever since the first generations of the idea,in the form of examples like the Volvo F10/12/16,DAF 2800/3600/95/XF,6 and 8 cylinder Scanias and numerous 14 litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■ variants etc etc over the years have showed that it’s the relatively large capacity,turbocharged,engine idea,as opposed to small higher speed diesels in the form of examples like the Volvo F7 and DAF 2300/2500,which was,and still is,the way to go to get the best combination of productivety,efficiency and reliability,at least for 24-30 t + operations and the Leyland 500 idea was no exception to that.
While the issue seems to confirm,at least in my view,that Dr Fogg’s idea,concerning the documented fixed head AEC 700 ( as opposed to the smaller Leyland 500 ),was all about trying to get ahead in that high specific torque output race by combining the idea of high boost levels with a reasonably sized engine,having used the fixed head idea as a way of circumventing the obvious foreseeable possibility of resulting block to head joint problems.
So CF if you had run a haulage company in the mid `70s and won a large contract, but part of that contract was an insistence that you had vehicles that could carry 22 tons payload what vehicles would you operate ■■?
Firstly I think there seems to be a lot of exaggeration concerning the so called weight ‘advantages’ of using a smaller engine v the efficiency,productivety,durabilty advantages of using a larger one.It seems obvious that in the case of engine weights it’s all about steer axle weight and in the real world it’s unlikely that the weight distribution of a load will be that critical in regards to steer axle weight and/or be possible to place to make use of,what is a relatively small engine weight advantage anyway,at least in terms of long haul uk/international general haulage work which was supposedly one of the main market design aims of the 500.
As for me,if it was a case of choosing the best Leyland product,I’d have followed BRS example and gone for the Crusader with the most powerful Rolls option possible which seems to have been the 305 and let the weight issue ‘look after itself’.Although it would have been interesting to have seen just what Dr Fogg’s fixed head AEC 700 could have done running at turbocharger boost levels up to the limits of it’s components without the block to head joint issue to worry about.
I think youll find that magical 22 ton payload was very much in demand in the 70s and thats probably why the Leyland products and the F86 were so popular at that time .Theres no way you could have used the 2800 or the 110/111 or the F88/F10 and achieved 22 tons payload and id be very suprised if the Crusader would have got there either.The mandator my dad drove could carry 22.5 tons payload and the F86 was very similar
It’s ironic that we’re probably having the exact same discussion here now as that which probably took place back then between Dr Fogg working for AEC v Leyland’s management regarding the best option between using a relatively larger engine v a relatively smaller one.
It’s even more ironic that many of those who seem to have blamed Leyland for not allowing AEC to just get on with the job in the AEC ( and the Scammell ) way,then seem to support what actually happened in that AEC got lumbered by being involved with to a large extent, and then inevitably suffered,by association,the long term results of,the Leyland Truck Group using retrograde Leyland cab and engine designs.
Even more ironically the reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Leyland’s management wanting to wipe out AEC but actually being all about the fact that the money just wasn’t there to do anything better.
The fact is,both in the case of long haul cab design and heavy truck engine specifications,the reality of truck development history,over the years to date,seems to be,more or less,on Dr Fogg’s ( and my ) side of the argument in that both for cab design and engine design,bigger is generally better.Just as is the case in every other definition of what it takes to make an efficient heavy truck.
So what youre really saying is ill ignore the question and go round the houses to deflect from answering what you were asked.And for your imformation AEC never ever used Leyland designed or built engines and the AV/AH760 was a 12.47 litre so it wasnt actually small .The question was which units would you have used in the mid `70s if you needed to achieve a 22 ton payload ,which was vital for some operations when the weight limit was only 32 tons
carryfast ,the 730 scania and 750 volvo are don for the scandinavian market for new 74 tonnes sweden and 76 in finland ,bouth have lobbed years for this and in fact whit weit power regulations it means they are alone on this market ,only specialspec mercedes(SISU) is in same 596 
,and the 44 tn,s are usualy 420 even now .and norme spec for 60 is 480 to 540 hp,exept some fanatics and loggers,cheers benkku
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE
Firstly you’re comparing apples and oranges in the form of turbocharged engines v naturally aspirated ones and the reason why the 8LXB was such a boat anchor was because of that reason which actually made it’s specific torque output hopeless by comparison.However it’s no good going to all the trouble of making an engine run reliably with forced induction,together with the resulting high specific torque output,and then throw the advantage away by using a small engine capacity which defeats the object in regards to both reliability and making the most of the advantage created by forced induction.When the idea is to optimise that advantage by using it together with a reasonable bore and stroke measurement and therefore a reasonably large overall capacity.
Which explains where we are now ever since the first generations of the idea,in the form of examples like the Volvo F10/12/16,DAF 2800/3600/95/XF,6 and 8 cylinder Scanias and numerous 14 litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■ variants etc etc over the years have showed that it’s the relatively large capacity,turbocharged,engine idea,as opposed to small higher speed diesels in the form of examples like the Volvo F7 and DAF 2300/2500,which was,and still is,the way to go to get the best combination of productivety,efficiency and reliability,at least for 24-30 t + operations and the Leyland 500 idea was no exception to that.
While the issue seems to confirm,at least in my view,that Dr Fogg’s idea,concerning the documented fixed head AEC 700 ( as opposed to the smaller Leyland 500 ),was all about trying to get ahead in that high specific torque output race by combining the idea of high boost levels with a reasonably sized engine,having used the fixed head idea as a way of circumventing the obvious foreseeable possibility of resulting block to head joint problems.
So CF if you had run a haulage company in the mid `70s and won a large contract, but part of that contract was an insistence that you had vehicles that could carry 22 tons payload what vehicles would you operate ■■?
Firstly I think there seems to be a lot of exaggeration concerning the so called weight ‘advantages’ of using a smaller engine v the efficiency,productivety,durabilty advantages of using a larger one.It seems obvious that in the case of engine weights it’s all about steer axle weight and in the real world it’s unlikely that the weight distribution of a load will be that critical in regards to steer axle weight and/or be possible to place to make use of,what is a relatively small engine weight advantage anyway,at least in terms of long haul uk/international general haulage work which was supposedly one of the main market design aims of the 500.
As for me,if it was a case of choosing the best Leyland product,I’d have followed BRS example and gone for the Crusader with the most powerful Rolls option possible which seems to have been the 305 and let the weight issue ‘look after itself’.Although it would have been interesting to have seen just what Dr Fogg’s fixed head AEC 700 could have done running at turbocharger boost levels up to the limits of it’s components without the block to head joint issue to worry about.
I think youll find that magical 22 ton payload was very much in demand in the 70s and thats probably why the Leyland products and the F86 were so popular at that time .Theres no way you could have used the 2800 or the 110/111 or the F88/F10 and achieved 22 tons payload and id be very suprised if the Crusader would have got there either.The mandator my dad drove could carry 22.5 tons payload and the F86 was very similar
It’s ironic that we’re probably having the exact same discussion here now as that which probably took place back then between Dr Fogg working for AEC v Leyland’s management regarding the best option between using a relatively larger engine v a relatively smaller one.
It’s even more ironic that many of those who seem to have blamed Leyland for not allowing AEC to just get on with the job in the AEC ( and the Scammell ) way,then seem to support what actually happened in that AEC got lumbered by being involved with to a large extent, and then inevitably suffered,by association,the long term results of,the Leyland Truck Group using retrograde Leyland cab and engine designs.
Even more ironically the reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Leyland’s management wanting to wipe out AEC but actually being all about the fact that the money just wasn’t there to do anything better.
The fact is,both in the case of long haul cab design and heavy truck engine specifications,the reality of truck development history,over the years to date,seems to be,more or less,on Dr Fogg’s ( and my ) side of the argument in that both for cab design and engine design,bigger is generally better.Just as is the case in every other definition of what it takes to make an efficient heavy truck.
So what youre really saying is ill ignore the question and go round the houses to deflect from answering what you were asked.And for your imformation AEC never ever used Leyland designed or built engines and the AV/AH760 was a 12.47 litre so it wasnt actually small .The question was which units would you have used in the mid `70s if you needed to achieve a 22 ton payload ,which was vital for some operations when the weight limit was only 32 tons
I didn’t ignore the question at all what I said was that I’d have just done what BRS obviously did in that the Crusader was obviously good enough to run a haulage operation regardless of the ( arguable ) weight ‘issues’ and regardless of what my competitors chose to do in that case being that my personal view would have been that it’s not worth compromising on basic truck spec in order to cater for an arguable weight penalty.
The problem for AEC was that it’s fortunes were tied in with the Leyland Truck Group as a whole and the fact is that Group ‘as a whole’ was led down the blind alley of concentrating on exactly your type of view which led to products like the 500 powered ERGO cabbed Leyland products which didn’t do anything to help the Group’s fortunes.
As for the 760 the question is would the fixed head 700 idea have proved to be the better option from the point of view of specific outputs,being that the TL12 was,more or less,as good as AEC’s engine designs got.Which as history shows wasn’t up to competing with Rolls or ■■■■■■■ products in the T45.Wether that would have been the case if the money wasted on designing,producing and fixing the 500 ( and the L60 ) had been invested in developing the TL12 instead is open to question but unfortunately can’t ever be answered. 
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE
So what youre really saying is ill ignore the question and go round the houses to deflect from answering what you were asked.And for your imformation AEC never ever used Leyland designed or built engines and the AV/AH760 was a 12.47 litre so it wasnt actually small .The question was which units would you have used in the mid `70s if you needed to achieve a 22 ton payload ,which was vital for some operations when the weight limit was only 32 tons
Hey ramone, I agree with you in those days and even today,why take liquid tanker and bulk or tipper fleet hauliers take the lightweights for payload of course. for some is payload everything what’s count isn’t it. And surely nowadays when overloading only a bit is anymore allowed. On multi trip work for instance 3 trips a day and carring 1.5 ton more means 4.5ton more a day and payed by the ton, so if you can count. And in those tays an F86 was a good investment,look nowadays they hold the volume as low as possible and put high torque turbo’s on them. look at Merc long a capacity enthousiast,went from a V10 to a V8 turbo then a V6 for the same output but always less and less capacity. Of course you need capacity for the 600+ HP.
Bye Eric,
bma.finland:
carryfast ,the 730 scania and 750 volvo are don for the scandinavian market for new 74 tonnes sweden and 76 in finland ,bouth have lobbed years for this and in fact whit weit power regulations it means they are alone on this market ,only specialspec mercedes(SISU) is in same 596 ,and the 44 tn,s are usualy 420 even now .and norme spec for 60 is 480 to 540 hp,exept some fanatics and loggers,cheers benkku
The V8 Scania is available in more than just one output spec and the 620 seems fine for a 60 tonner but the important bit is that as usual efficiency is all about the economies of scale in making trucks bigger and able to move higher payloads using large capacity engines with high specific torque outputs and using a 730 instead of a 620 in that regard won’t make much difference.However the only way that you’ll be able to make a 480 work at 60 t gross is by lowering the gearing to make up for the torque deficit compared to something like the 620 or 730.In general an over specced wagon won’t cost more in fuel unlike an under specced one.However the relevant bit is that history proves that 7-8 Litre engines aren’t efficient running at even 24-32 t gross.I’m surprised that you seem to be concentrating on power output figures when it’s the torque output that matters and determines fuel efficiency.
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
carryfast ,the 730 scania and 750 volvo are don for the scandinavian market for new 74 tonnes sweden and 76 in finland ,bouth have lobbed years for this and in fact whit weit power regulations it means they are alone on this market ,only specialspec mercedes(SISU) is in same 596 ,and the 44 tn,s are usualy 420 even now .and norme spec for 60 is 480 to 540 hp,exept some fanatics and loggers,cheers benkku
The V8 Scania is available in more than just one output spec and the 620 seems fine for a 60 tonner but the important bit is that as usual efficiency is all about the economies of scale in making trucks bigger and able to move higher payloads using large capacity engines with high specific torque outputs and using a 730 instead of a 620 in that regard won’t make much difference.However the only way that you’ll be able to make a 480 work at 60 t gross is by lowering the gearing to make up for the torque deficit compared to something like the 620 or 730.In general an over specced wagon won’t cost more in fuel unlike an under specced one.However the relevant bit is that history proves that 7-8 Litre engines aren’t efficient running at even 24-32 t gross.I’m surprised that you seem to be concentrating on power output figures when it’s the torque output that matters and determines fuel efficiency.
hey CF, I agree underpowered cost more, much wear more heavy to drive and so on. But overpowered cost it’s price to. And nowadays the low capacity engines have more torque as the high capacities in their time. Look a Scania 141 had less torque as an 11litre 340HP of today.
Bye Eric,
tiptop495:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE
So what youre really saying is ill ignore the question and go round the houses to deflect from answering what you were asked.And for your imformation AEC never ever used Leyland designed or built engines and the AV/AH760 was a 12.47 litre so it wasnt actually small .The question was which units would you have used in the mid `70s if you needed to achieve a 22 ton payload ,which was vital for some operations when the weight limit was only 32 tons
Hey ramone, I agree with you in those days and even today,why take liquid tanker and bulk or tipper fleet hauliers take the lightweights for payload of course. for some is payload everything what’s count isn’t it. And surely nowadays when overloading only a bit is anymore allowed. On multi trip work for instance 3 trips a day and carring 1.5 ton more means 4.5ton more a day and payed by the ton, so if you can count. And in those tays an F86 was a good investment,look nowadays they hold the volume as low as possible and put high torque turbo’s on them. look at Merc long a capacity enthousiast,went from a V10 to a V8 turbo then a V6 for the same output but always less and less capacity. Of course you need capacity for the 600+ HP.
Bye Eric,
There’s a difference between number of cylinders and overall capacity.In general what we’ve seen is a re alignment in thinking concerning getting the compromise right in regards to bore/stroke dimensions,overall capacity and cylinder numbers.In which case no surprise that Scania actually increased the overall capacity of it’s V8 while most other manufacturers have moved away from V8/V10 engines in favour of 6 cylinder engines.But no one with any sense seems to want to go back to the days of using 7-8 litre engines in heavy trucks of 24 t gross +.
tiptop495:
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
carryfast ,the 730 scania and 750 volvo are don for the scandinavian market for new 74 tonnes sweden and 76 in finland ,bouth have lobbed years for this and in fact whit weit power regulations it means they are alone on this market ,only specialspec mercedes(SISU) is in same 596 ,and the 44 tn,s are usualy 420 even now .and norme spec for 60 is 480 to 540 hp,exept some fanatics and loggers,cheers benkku
The V8 Scania is available in more than just one output spec and the 620 seems fine for a 60 tonner but the important bit is that as usual efficiency is all about the economies of scale in making trucks bigger and able to move higher payloads using large capacity engines with high specific torque outputs and using a 730 instead of a 620 in that regard won’t make much difference.However the only way that you’ll be able to make a 480 work at 60 t gross is by lowering the gearing to make up for the torque deficit compared to something like the 620 or 730.In general an over specced wagon won’t cost more in fuel unlike an under specced one.However the relevant bit is that history proves that 7-8 Litre engines aren’t efficient running at even 24-32 t gross.I’m surprised that you seem to be concentrating on power output figures when it’s the torque output that matters and determines fuel efficiency.
hey CF, I agree underpowered cost more, much wear more heavy to drive and so on. But overpowered cost it’s price to. And nowadays the low capacity engines have more torque as the high capacities in their time. Look a Scania 141 had less torque as an 11litre 340HP of today.
Bye Eric,
The relevant comparison in this case is the advantage of an 11-14 Litre v a 7-8 Litre engine in regards to getting decent specific and overall torque outputs without overstressing the engine and that difference is as relevant today as it was in the days of the Leyland 500 engine or the Volvo F7 or the DAF 2300/2500.
[zb]
anorak:
0
Another intelligent contribution from you in favour of the great Leyland ERGO and 500 engine. 
Hey CF, you talk always about 7 or 8 litres in the time the F86 had only 6.7 litre but was very reliable even at 38 gross here,it could match the F88 about reliability and the Scania 110 non turbo 11 litre with equal output stand more in the workshop as the F86. Stressed or not but the base of the engine must be good. And of course you can overstress engines with boosting them if the base not is developed for it.
Look at the Volvo 495 240,F88 290,F10 300 all were probem engines caused by overstressing (to much is to much,but the F86 was developed for it’s 200HP’s)
But today of course 8 litre is to less we are grossing 44 tons, engines must last for a million km and so on,only 6 tons difference but much faster and economical by the years of development.You can’t compare those days as today.
An anecdote our coal neighbour had one’s a Scania Vabis L55 (120HP) in drawbar and only 5 speeds and loaded always about 20 tons.
And it must drive twice a day to the pits was 800km a day with two drivers,it was of course low geared so on the few motorways it always runs at 2500rpm to get 80kph out it. And last but not least it did 500 000km with the same engine without even opening it. The later L56 with it’s 8 litres was less less reliable and had 145HP. The base engine was not good and never was developed so it became the LB 80,81,86 with the same problems you could hang as headgasget on you hat rack insteed of your jacket.
Good night to heavy day today I’m overstressed Eric,
tiptop495:
Hey CF, you talk always about 7 or 8 litres in the time the F86 had only 6.7 litre but was very reliable even at 38 gross here,it could match the F88 about reliability and the Scania 110 non turbo 11 litre with equal output stand more in the workshop as the F86. Stressed or not but the base of the engine must be good. And of course you can overstress engines with boosting them if the base not is developed for it.
Look at the Volvo 495 240,F88 290,F10 300 all were probem engines caused by overstressing (to much is to much,but the F86 was developed for it’s 200HP’s)
But today of course 8 litre is to less we are grossing 44 tons, engines must last for a million km and so on,only 6 tons difference but much faster and economical by the years of development.You can’t compare those days as today.
An anecdote our coal neighbour had one’s a Scania Vabis L55 (120HP) in drawbar and only 5 speeds and loaded always about 20 tons.
And it must drive twice a day to the pits was 800km a day with two drivers,it was of course low geared so on the few motorways it always runs at 2500rpm to get 80kph out it. And last but not least it did 500 000km with the same engine without even opening it. The later L56 with it’s 8 litres was less less reliable and had 145HP. The base engine was not good and never was developed so it became the LB 80,81,86 with the same problems you could hang as headgasget on you hat rack insteed of your jacket.
Good night to heavy day today I’m overstressed Eric,
Evening Eric, you always talk good sense, unlike our resident Troll!!!
Cheerio for now.
