kr79:
But the fact remains all over europe the 110 111 scania and the f88 and f10 sold in much larger numbers and were about on par with what british trucks were power wise.
The 111 only went up to 305bhp when by that time the 290 ■■■■■■■ was pretty popular in british trucks.
That was seen as adequite to do the job then.
The only two markets that bucked tge trend were italy and to an extend ireland. But thst was largely to do with there operating conditions.
And the days of paddy one hitting it at 75 mph to italy and back while nailed to the floor both ways is a thing of tbe past other than in limeyphils head
I think you’re still looking at it all from the wrong angle of concentrating on peak power outputs being used to their max to make average speeds as fast as possible.When the actual aim was all about the amount of power well below peak power ( torque ) which could be obtained in which case it’s nothing to do with a comparison of just peak power outputs.Which is why you’re right high powered trucks being driven close to peak power is a thing of the past because it’s not fuel efficient and it’s outside of the design aims of big power engines as intended by their manufactuers.What we’re now left with is more or less such power outputs being used as intended in it being the torque which is what matters not the top end power which was/is just an unwanted by product.
On that basis no the F88,F10 and the 290 ■■■■■■■ etc were really just development stages on route to the realisation of that ideal of a peak power output of at least 10 hp per tonne at around 2,000 rpm,being a reflection of the type of torque levels required,to produce the design aims of productivety combined with reasonable fuel economy.I think it is generally accepted amongst most operators that anything less than that power to weight ratio,isn’t efficient.
The only issue is the delay which occured during the 1970’s amongst most operators in realising that situation as opposed to manufacturers like Scammell and AEC who’d known it at least during the 500 ERGO’s production life while products like the Bedford TM and SA 400 and the argument between Leylands management and AEC’s concerning the 3VTG project,shows that the Brit manufacturers were also well aware of the development required in cab design to compete with the competition from the euro and scandinavian competition.The fact that the 500 powered ERGO and the TL12 powered Marathon and T45 made it into production,as opposed to the 3VTG cab and development of the Rolls powered Crusader instead and maybe a better developed T45 brought to the market sooner,really seems to have been an indictment of the backward thinking,amongst the domestic customer base,and the lack of funding and investment at Leyland in not being able to keep pace with the level of development know how contained amongst it’s workforce.However it’s an injustice that many people then try to blame that workforce for that situation.
Having said that I think that know how amongst the Leyland Group workforce was well aware that there was probably no way that the AEC engine range could have been made competitive with the outside sourced engine developments from Rolls and ■■■■■■■■■■■ TL12 being the only possible real contender with it’s outputs seeming to say everything about it’s probable potential,as opposed to those competitors.Although we’d only have kown for sure if the money invested in the development,production,and warranty claims regarding the 500 had been spent on the TL12 instead.
High revving 290 ■■■■■■■ , whats all that about ■■?
kr79:
But the fact remains all over europe the 110 111 scania and the f88 and f10 sold in much larger numbers and were about on par with what british trucks were power wise.
The 111 only went up to 305bhp when by that time the 290 ■■■■■■■ was pretty popular in british trucks.
That was seen as adequite to do the job then.
The only two markets that bucked tge trend were italy and to an extend ireland. But thst was largely to do with there operating conditions.
And the days of paddy one hitting it at 75 mph to italy and back while nailed to the floor both ways is a thing of tbe past other than in limeyphils head
I think you’re still looking at it all from the wrong angle of concentrating on peak power outputs being used to their max to make average speeds as fast as possible.When the actual aim was all about the amount of power well below peak power ( torque ) which could be obtained in which case it’s nothing to do with a comparison of just peak power outputs.Which is why you’re right high powered trucks being driven close to peak power is a thing of the past because it’s not fuel efficient and it’s outside of the design aims of big power engines as intended by their manufactuers.What we’re now left with is more or less such power outputs being used as intended in it being the torque which is what matters not the top end power which was/is just an unwanted by product.
On that basis no the F88,F10 and the 290 ■■■■■■■ etc were really just development stages on route to the realisation of that ideal of a peak power output of at least 10 hp per tonne at around 2,000 rpm,being a reflection of the type of torque levels required,to produce the design aims of productivety combined with reasonable fuel economy.I think it is generally accepted amongst most operators that anything less than that power to weight ratio,isn’t efficient.
High revving 290 ■■■■■■■ , whats all that about ■■?
I wasn’t referring to it’s relative speed compared to the F88 etc I was referring to it’s peak power output not being close to the 10 hp per tonne level.Unlike the higher power options of the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ which customers eventually demanded.Although in the case of the ■■■■■■■ the 290 was arguably just a de rated option of the higher powered versions anyway.
windrush:
So, after 27 pages of going round in circles, it would appear that the ‘Best Ergo’ never even got off the drawing board!
Pete.
More like the ERGO/Marathon were products which didn’t meet the demands of the market sector they were aimed at and which cost the Leyland Group whatever small amount of development funds it had.Which just made sure that Leyland Group didn’t have the money to develop anything much better at the time when it needed to.
The Crusader was designed as a day cab with major input from BRS, it also started out with a 220 Rolls, the 280 was also on offer at the same time the E290 was launched. So where this 305hp version that CF refers to comes from I don’t know!
AFAIK There was the 220, 265, 280 (latterly the 290, then 300) and the 320li which was a rare beast. After Perkins took over the ratings were 325, 350, 375 and at the very end a 400tx
The Crusader was designed as a day cab with major input from BRS, it also started out with a 220 Rolls, the 280 was also on offer at the same time the E290 was launched. So where this 305hp version that CF refers to comes from I don’t know!
AFAIK There was the 220, 265, 280 (latterly the 290, then 300) and the 320li which was a rare beast. After Perkins took over the ratings were 325, 350, 375 and at the very end a 400tx
The AEC TL12, whilst based on the AV760 cylinder dimensions,was basically a new engine design. Its original power output was 270 bhp in imperial measurements, (294 bhp in metric equivalent measurements). Intercooled TL12 development engines produced 330 bhp (imperial) or 360 bhp (metric). The TL12 served its market and customers very well. It had potential for further development. Leyland’s dire financial problems killed it off, coupled with a serious economic downturn in the country when the T45 was launched in 1981. All truck manufacturers suffered from reduced sales volumes in that recession, and if you are the market leader in overall truck sales across all weight categories, as Leyland Truck and Bus was, then they suffered more than any other manufacturer.
newmercman:
The Crusader was designed as a day cab with major input from BRS, it also started out with a 220 Rolls, the 280 was also on offer at the same time the E290 was launched. So where this 305hp version that CF refers to comes from I don’t know!
AFAIK There was the 220, 265, 280 (latterly the 290, then 300) and the 320li which was a rare beast. After Perkins took over the ratings were 325, 350, 375 and at the very end a 400tx
Without checking any of the details, this is my potted history of the Crusader: originally, it was proposed to offer it with the AEC V8. When it was launched, the 6x4 versions had the option of the Detroit 8V71. The British Army ordered theirs with the RR engine at 305bhp, as if the two-stroke was not even on the list. What could they have been thinking?
newmercman:
The Crusader was designed as a day cab with major input from BRS, it also started out with a 220 Rolls, the 280 was also on offer at the same time the E290 was launched. So where this 305hp version that CF refers to comes from I don’t know!
AFAIK There was the 220, 265, 280 (latterly the 290, then 300) and the 320li which was a rare beast. After Perkins took over the ratings were 325, 350, 375 and at the very end a 400tx
Without checking any of the details, this is my potted history of the Crusader: originally, it was proposed to offer it with the AEC V8. When it was launched, the 6x4 versions had the option of the Detroit 8V71. The British Army ordered theirs with the RR engine at 305bhp, as if the two-stroke was not even on the list. What could they have been thinking?
The relevant bit,in the case of the V8 options,is that Scammell engineers knew that the Detroit 8V71 was a better engine than the AEC V8.Although knowing them I’m sure they would have preferred to use the turbocharged version of it if only the domestic customer base had been that forward thinking.
While in the case of the 6 cylinder options the army’s engineers ( who generally aren’t idiots ) obviously realised that the Rolls 305 was a better bet than asking Scammell to fit it with anything else available at the time,considering it’s power and torque outputs by comparison,and the idea of keeping things British wherever possible was ( rightly ) still part of the government’s economic policy.
newmercman:
The Crusader was designed as a day cab with major input from BRS, it also started out with a 220 Rolls, the 280 was also on offer at the same time the E290 was launched. So where this 305hp version that CF refers to comes from I don’t know!
AFAIK There was the 220, 265, 280 (latterly the 290, then 300) and the 320li which was a rare beast. After Perkins took over the ratings were 325, 350, 375 and at the very end a 400tx
That was about 1 year and 7 months after I’d left school to work in truck manufacturing while,if I’ve read it right,you hadn’t,or only just,started secondary school about then.
Carryfast:
The relevant bit,in the case of the V8 options,is that Scammell engineers knew that the Detroit 8V71 was a better engine than the AEC V8.
How do you know this? Have you ever spoken to any of them?
How could they know that AEC V8 was inferior? The Crusader was first shown at the 1968 Earls Court Show, as was the AEC V8, so there was no service knowledge of the engine. Presumably they had some engineers who were so good, that they could just look at the drawings and declare it a dud. Scammell did not design or make engines, so they did not employ any engine designers.
Carryfast:
Although knowing them I’m sure they would have preferred to use the turbocharged version of it if only the domestic customer base had been that forward thinking.
How do you know this? Why would they think one thing, yet do the opposite?
Carryfast:
While in the case of the 6 cylinder options the army’s engineers ( who generally aren’t idiots )
How on Earth can you possibly have the wherewithall to decide whether people are idiots or not?
Carryfast:
The relevant bit,in the case of the V8 options,is that Scammell engineers knew that the Detroit 8V71 was a better engine than the AEC V8.
How do you know this? Have you ever spoken to any of them?
How could they know that AEC V8 was inferior? The Crusader was first shown at the 1968 Earls Court Show, as was the AEC V8, so there was no service knowledge of the engine. Presumably they had some engineers who were so good, that they could just look at the drawings and declare it a dud. Scammell did not design or make engines, so they did not employ any engine designers.
Carryfast:
Although knowing them I’m sure they would have preferred to use the turbocharged version of it if only the domestic customer base had been that forward thinking.
How do you know this? Why would they think one thing, yet do the opposite?
Carryfast:
While in the case of the 6 cylinder options the army’s engineers ( who generally aren’t idiots )
How on Earth can you possibly have the wherewithall to decide whether people are idiots or not?
Yes at least at shop floor level at least during the late 1970’s.
Just like most others who were familiar with using Detroit engines they were regarded highly by them.Truck builders have to know a lot about engines to make the correct choices even if they aren’t making the engines themselves.Anyone could see that the AEC V8 was going to be more stressed than the 8V71 just by taking into account the respective engine speeds of the two engines to get the equivalent levels of output and the fact that the two stroke shares much of those stresses across double the amount of power strokes.If they thought that the AEC V8 was going to be up to the job they wouldn’t have bothered with importing the Detroit option.The AEC V8’s record in service seems to confirm that view which was a record built up during the Crusader’s production life.While obviously,as a result, the Crusader and it’s engine options didn’t contribute to the reliability issues,concerning the Leyland Group’s products,which the 500 and AEC V8 powered ERGO did.
As I’ve said they were well aware of the connections between specific torque output and efficiency and as such would have known that the 8V71T was the more efficient option but there’s no way that those types of outputs would have been accepted in general in the domestic market so why bother with the effort and expense of importing an engine option which not enough customers would buy. That’s even assuming that the Detroit could have found general acceptance in the domestic uk market anyway which history says it didn’t.
It’s not a case of ‘wherewithall’ to state the ‘fact’ that the army’s engineering decisions aren’t undertaken by idiots.As speccing the Crusader with the Rolls 305 shows.As opposed to Leyland’s management designing ( and haulage operators buying ) the 500 powered ERGO for use on anything other than local four wheeler work such as refuse collection.Contrary to nmm’s comments that’s not the fault of the workers.
“Perspective” might have been a better word. How would you have the perspective, even to know what an idiot looked like?
I dont often disagree with you anorak but i`m with CF on this one,i think he is more qualified to know what an idiot looked like than anyone else on this site .Just read any one of his posts that should confirm it
“Perspective” might have been a better word. How would you have the perspective, even to know what an idiot looked like?
No it’s just a case of the word idiot being used as it applies in the case of bad engineering logic.As I said the army aren’t generally known for making idiotic decisions based on that meaning of the word and at least in the case of the specifications of it’s Crusader fleet and the logic used by those who designed it and built it.
As opposed to those who bought into the idea of the ERGO being good for anything other than a design for four wheeler local distribution work such as a dustcart operation and those in control of Leyland Group ( mostly bankers and politicians ) who ordered loads of it’s already limited budget to be spent on development and production of it’s 500 engine option.
windrush:
So, after 27 pages of going round in circles, it would appear that the ‘Best Ergo’ never even got off the drawing board!
Pete.
More like the ERGO/Marathon were products which didn’t meet the demands of the market sector they were aimed at and which cost the Leyland Group whatever small amount of development funds it had.Which just made sure that Leyland Group didn’t have the money to develop anything much better at the time when it needed to.
“Perspective” might have been a better word. How would you have the perspective, even to know what an idiot looked like?
No it’s just a case of the word idiot being used as it applies in the case of bad engineering logic.As I said the army aren’t generally known for making idiotic decisions based on that meaning of the word and at least in the case of the specifications of it’s Crusader fleet and the logic used by those who designed it and built it.
As opposed to those who bought into the idea of the ERGO being good for anything other than a design for four wheeler local distribution work such as a dustcart operation and those in control of Leyland Group ( mostly bankers and politicians ) who ordered loads of it’s already limited budget to be spent on development and production of it’s 500 engine option.
On that theory could you name 1 british produced vehicle supplier that was offering a more suitable cab for long distance work when the ergo was introduced,and for that matter your suggestion that the ergo would be more suitable as a dust cart obviously shows up your limitations as the ergo was never designed to be or ever could be a crew cab , without major conversions.I`ve noticed you have had nothing to say about Gingerfolds revelations of the TL12 being developed up to 360 bhp did you convieneintly forget to comment on that 1 as it blows out of the water your assumptions that the engine was never up to it.The engine was dropped purely for financial reasons
“Perspective” might have been a better word. How would you have the perspective, even to know what an idiot looked like?
No it’s just a case of the word idiot being used as it applies in the case of bad engineering logic.As I said the army aren’t generally known for making idiotic decisions based on that meaning of the word and at least in the case of the specifications of it’s Crusader fleet and the logic used by those who designed it and built it.
As opposed to those who bought into the idea of the ERGO being good for anything other than a design for four wheeler local distribution work such as a dustcart operation and those in control of Leyland Group ( mostly bankers and politicians ) who ordered loads of it’s already limited budget to be spent on development and production of it’s 500 engine option.
On that theory could you name 1 british produced vehicle supplier that was offering a more suitable cab for long distance work when the ergo was introduced,and for that matter your suggestion that the ergo would be more suitable as a dust cart obviously shows up your limitations as the ergo was never designed to be or ever could be a crew cab , without major conversions.I`ve noticed you have had nothing to say about Gingerfolds revelations of the TL12 being developed up to 360 bhp did you convieneintly forget to comment on that 1 as it blows out of the water your assumptions that the engine was never up to it.The engine was dropped purely for financial reasons
Firstly as for the ERGO never being able to be designed as a ‘crew cab’.Although there were many other types of local distribution spec vehicles which didn’t need any crew cab capability anyway.
As I’ve said the Crusader was designed to meet the criterea for a long haul truck and arguably made a better job of it ‘if’ the issue of the fixed cab was overlooked,which it obviously was by many of it’s customers,with the results of that design superiority counting in regards to the reliability issue.With it’s introduction date being close enough ( late 1960’s as opposed to mid 1960’s ) to that of the ERGO to make no difference.Although the issue in this case is what might have been possible assuming that Leyland Group’s controlling interests had allowed the 3 VTG project to go ahead together with development of what became the TL12 assuming it had the potential claimed for it.Instead of which they chose to waste the money on the ERGO/Marathon cabs and 500 and AEC V8 engine development and production.Having said that there’s a big difference between seeing dyno outputs of up to 360 hp compared to being able to sustain those types of output reliably in service.Which probably explains why the TL 12 was never pushed to anywhere near those figures for use in production.While the questions remain concerning how much would it have cost to have made the thing produce those types of output reliably and what would have been the point considering that Rolls knew that the Eagle already contained the potential for those types of output anyway and considering the uk customer base’s aversion to high power outputs at the time when it really mattered.Remembering that Leyland Group was fighting a losing financial battle in which the main driving force was all about making sure not to build up financial liabilities before inevitably having to close the doors.
The fact is contrary to all the tory bs none of that was the fault of the Group’s workforce though.
