Carryfast:
How is it supposedly a ‘lie’ in your view to say that the graphs which are clearly contained in those two posts show that at around the 1,800 rpm which the Rolls 305 is putting out 280 hp it’s SFC is around 215g/KWh.While at around the 2,100 rpm which the TL12 in the Marathon is putting out around that power it’s SFC is around 230g/KWh while even the T45 spec TL12 doesn’t show a large difference in those figures either and certainly not any which are close to those of the Rolls 305 at the equivalent level of output.If you’re saying I’m wrong then you put the relevant graphs on here if you think it’s too difficult for anyone to just read them from the links and then you tell us all exactly what you read as being the relevant figures at the relevant engine speeds and outputs.I’d suggest if you’re not prepared to do that to support your bs then it’s you who needs to STFU. 
What sort of idiot uses SFC at maximum revs to select an automotive engine? If you had posted the graphs like I told you, instead of cherry-picking figures from them to support your potty prejudices, the forum would be able to see which of the engines had the best performance in normal operating conditions- IE medium revs.
For the benefit of those readers, the RR and Leyland engines have a min SFC of about 210g/kWh at around 1500rpm, at which speed both are making about 240bhp. The Gardner 8LXB produced 200bhp at that engine speed, with a SFC of 200g/kWh. For some reason, the Gardner had a reputation for being more expensive to buy than those other engines, yet there was still a waiting list. I wonder if these figures have anything to do with that?
bma.finland:
carryfast dear ,the new messias ,nobody else then heavy haulage transporters looks at fuelconsuming in 2100 rmp ,you look at the figures in high torque range in those days 1300 to 1700 now 900 to 1300 ,there is the real money to win,amen and out
I know.I was actually quoting the Rolls efficient ‘maximum’ engine speed if you look at the graph 1,300-1,800 rpm is it’s most efficient operating range.Over which range it’s putting out around 210-280 hp.The equivalent matching engine speed range of the TL12 in the Marathon corresponds to an output of around 190-250 hp so obviously less average speed/productivety while even the later flexitorque version used in the T45 isn’t much better.You’ve obviously missed everything I’ve posted previously concerning the fact that it’s all about torque.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
How is it supposedly a ‘lie’ in your view to say that the graphs which are clearly contained in those two posts show that at around the 1,800 rpm which the Rolls 305 is putting out 280 hp it’s SFC is around 215g/KWh.While at around the 2,100 rpm which the TL12 in the Marathon is putting out around that power it’s SFC is around 230g/KWh while even the T45 spec TL12 doesn’t show a large difference in those figures either and certainly not any which are close to those of the Rolls 305 at the equivalent level of output.If you’re saying I’m wrong then you put the relevant graphs on here if you think it’s too difficult for anyone to just read them from the links and then you tell us all exactly what you read as being the relevant figures at the relevant engine speeds and outputs.I’d suggest if you’re not prepared to do that to support your bs then it’s you who needs to STFU.
What sort of idiot uses SFC at maximum revs to select an automotive engine? If you had posted the graphs like I told you, instead of cherry-picking figures from them to support your potty prejudices, the forum would be able to see which of the engines had the best performance in normal operating conditions- IE medium revs.
For the benefit of those readers, the RR and Leyland engines have a min SFC of about 210g/kWh at around 1500rpm, at which speed both are making about 240bhp. The Gardner 8LXB produced 200bhp at that engine speed, with a SFC of 200g/kWh. For some reason, the Gardner had a reputation for being more expensive to buy than those other engines, yet there was still a waiting list. I wonder if these figures have anything to do with that?
You really need to go to spec savers if you think that graph for the TL12 in the Marathon shows 240 hp at 1,500 or even the later flexitorque version in the T45 for that matter.While the minimum SFC for the Marathon corresponds with more like 180 hp.
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
carryfast dear ,the new messias ,nobody else then heavy haulage transporters looks at fuelconsuming in 2100 rmp ,you look at the figures in high torque range in those days 1300 to 1700 now 900 to 1300 ,there is the real money to win,amen and out
I know.I was actually quoting the Rolls efficient ‘maximum’ engine speed if you look at the graph 1,300-1,800 rpm is it’s most efficient operating range.Over which range it’s putting out around 210-280 hp.The equivalent matching engine speed range of the TL12 in the Marathon corresponds to an output of around 190-250 hp so obviously less average speed/productivety while even the later flexitorque version used in the T45 isn’t much better.You’ve obviously missed everything I’ve posted previously concerning the fact that it’s all about torque.
no you missed i actually KNOW that fact ,and the fact you do not need 3000nm for every work even whit heavy weights if the geografics isn,t hard , 
cheers benkku
bma.finland:
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
carryfast dear ,the new messias ,nobody else then heavy haulage transporters looks at fuelconsuming in 2100 rmp ,you look at the figures in high torque range in those days 1300 to 1700 now 900 to 1300 ,there is the real money to win,amen and out
I know.I was actually quoting the Rolls efficient ‘maximum’ engine speed if you look at the graph 1,300-1,800 rpm is it’s most efficient operating range.Over which range it’s putting out around 210-280 hp.The equivalent matching engine speed range of the TL12 in the Marathon corresponds to an output of around 190-250 hp so obviously less average speed/productivety while even the later flexitorque version used in the T45 isn’t much better.You’ve obviously missed everything I’ve posted previously concerning the fact that it’s all about torque.
no you missed i actually KNOW that fact ,and the fact you do not need 3000nm for every work even whit heavy weights if the geografics isn,t hard , cheers benkku
If you knew that fact then you’d have known that a 620 would be more efficient running at 60t gross than a 420 regardless of terrain considering that you’ll still need to accelerate from a standstill plenty of times during a working day and even on the flat the 620 would be able to run at lower engine speeds for a given road speed.
Carryfast:
You really need to go to spec savers if you think that graph for the TL12 in the Marathon shows 240 hp at 1,500 or even the later flexitorque version in the T45 for that matter.While the minimum SFC for the Marathon corresponds with more like 180 hp.
Who needs to visit the optician now? Everyone on here can tear your lies to shreds, yet you still repeat them. Why?
Blimey. He’s been silent for over two hours. Let’s see…7 posts per day, allow him a good ten hours on his back to dream it all up…that’s a two hour interval between outpourings, on average. I reckon that last post has finally done the trick.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
You really need to go to spec savers if you think that graph for the TL12 in the Marathon shows 240 hp at 1,500 rpm or even the later flexitorque version in the T45 for that matter.While the minimum SFC for the Marathon corresponds with more like 180 hp just as I’ve said.
0
Who needs to visit the optician now? Everyone on here can tear your lies to shreds, yet you still repeat them. Why?
What a surprise you’ve cut off the lower part of the graph that actually shows the respective engine speeds and the respective SFC graph of the Marathon which I was referring to.So in view of that SFC graph how is it a lie to suggest that the minimum SFC of the TL12 in the Marathon corresponds with around 180 hp or that 1,500 rpm on the T45’s TL12 graph corresponds with around 240 hp.It doesn’t take Stevie Wonder or a genius to see that those graphs show that the Rolls 305 was the ( much ) more efficient engine.
I’ll now wait with interest to see exactly which figures ‘everyone’ ( in your view will be using ) to tear my comments to shreds.IE I don’t see anything in those graphs which would show that the TL12 even in T45 spec,let alone Marathon spec was matching,or even came close,to the Rolls 305 in respects of SFC and power/torque outputs between 1,300-1,800 rpm.
Carryfast:
What a surprise you’ve cut off the lower part of the graph that actually shows the respective engine speeds and the respective SFC graph of the Marathon which I was referring to.So in view of that SFC graph how is it a lie to suggest that the minimum SFC of the TL12 in the Marathon corresponds with around 180 hp or that 1,500 rpm on the T45’s TL12 graph corresponds with around 240 hp.It doesn’t take Stevie Wonder or a genius to see that those graphs show that the Rolls 305 was the ( much ) more efficient engine.
I’ll now wait with interest to see exactly which figures ‘everyone’ ( in your view will be using ) to tear my comments to shreds.IE I don’t see anything in those graphs which would show that the TL12 even in T45 spec,let alone Marathon spec was matching,or even came close,to the Rolls 305 in respects of SFC and power/torque outputs between 1,300-1,800 rpm.
Click the graph. The picture will expand to show it all. FFS. Give me strength.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
You really need to go to spec savers if you think that graph for the TL12 in the Marathon shows 240 hp at 1,500 rpm or even the later flexitorque version in the T45 for that matter.While the minimum SFC for the Marathon corresponds with more like 180 hp just as I’ve said.
0
Who needs to visit the optician now? Everyone on here can tear your lies to shreds, yet you still repeat them. Why?
What a surprise you’ve cut off the lower part of the graph that actually shows the respective engine speeds and the respective SFC graph of the Marathon which I was referring to.So in view of that SFC graph how is it a lie to suggest that the minimum SFC of the TL12 in the Marathon corresponds with around 180 hp or that 1,500 rpm on the T45’s TL12 graph corresponds with around 240 hp.It doesn’t take Stevie Wonder or a genius to see that those graphs show that the Rolls 305 was the ( much ) more efficient engine.
I’ll now wait with interest to see exactly which figures ‘everyone’ ( in your view will be using ) to tear my comments to shreds.IE I don’t see anything in those graphs which would show that the TL12 even in T45 spec,let alone Marathon spec was matching,or even came close,to the Rolls 305 in respects of SFC and power/torque outputs between at least 1,300-1,800 rpm while even at 1,200 rpm the Rolls is putting out a useful 190 hp + at an SFC of less than 215g/KWh.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
What a surprise you’ve cut off the lower part of the graph that actually shows the respective engine speeds and the respective SFC graph of the Marathon which I was referring to.So in view of that SFC graph how is it a lie to suggest that the minimum SFC of the TL12 in the Marathon corresponds with around 180 hp or that 1,500 rpm on the T45’s TL12 graph corresponds with around 240 hp.It doesn’t take Stevie Wonder or a genius to see that those graphs show that the Rolls 305 was the ( much ) more efficient engine.
I’ll now wait with interest to see exactly which figures ‘everyone’ ( in your view will be using ) to tear my comments to shreds.IE I don’t see anything in those graphs which would show that the TL12 even in T45 spec,let alone Marathon spec was matching,or even came close,to the Rolls 305 in respects of SFC and power/torque outputs between 1,300-1,800 rpm.
Click the graph. The picture will expand to show it all. FFS. Give me strength.
Right so exactly where does that graph show that the TL12 in the Marathon was putting out much more than 180 hp at it’s minimum SFC and exactly where does it show that the TL12 could match the Rolls in regard to power/torque outputs and SFC at every point throughout the range between at least 1,200 rpm and 1,800 rpm in Marathon spec or even in it’s later T45 form 
.While it seems obvious that the lines which you’ve drawn don’t match the actual respective graph lines relating to the Marathon or the T45.
I’m confused, what Ergo cabbed lorry had the Rolls 305?
In fact how many non military Rolls 305 engined lorries ever went into service?
I had a Matchbox Crusader and that had a Gardner 8LXB in it that I transplanted out of a promotional Guy Big J model. HTH…
newmercman:
I’m confused, what Ergo cabbed lorry had the Rolls 305?
Confused doesn’t even begin to describe it… 
You know, I’ve been around lorries since being 5 years old. I began my working career in 1968 with Rank Hovis and stayed with them until 1981, then joined Spillers Milling until 1991. Back then in Ranks flour milling and agriculture divisions at any one time the ‘heavy’ lorry fleet stood at about 350, none of them needed high power output engines, none needed sleeper cabs. Similarly in Spillers the fleet stood at around 180 ‘heavies’, none needed high power engines, none needed sleeper cabs. What we did need were cost effective and reliable trucks to do the job. OK, reliability did become an issue as Leyland sank into the morass, but in their heyday the hundreds of ERGO cabbed AECs and Leylands that I’ve worked with did what was required of them. If your average journey is 100 miles you specify accordingly. If you want to run to Saudi Arabia you specify accordingly. The majority of ‘bread and butter’ work in road transport is local (define local as 100 - 150 miles). The exotic few go to Saudi or wherever.
Then in 1991 I joined Turners of Soham for the next 14 years. Nothing was high powered there, nothing was fancy. In their time Turners operated well over 100 ERGO cabbed AECs and a few TL12 Marathons. Today, Turners run over 1,000 trucks, nothing over fancy, nothing ultra high powered. Today Turners is the largest and most successful family owned road transport business in the UK. They must have got something right over the years with their buying policy.
My point with this, you buy the truck best suited to your work. Not based on fanciful theories and dreaming.
Morning all, gingerfold, hear, hear.
I refer to my earlier post, “from the Good Book”, “there are non so blind”, or to paraphrase the original Wolverhampton Corporation livery, in Dear Carryfasts case, "there aint no light coming out of the darkness!!!
Have a good day Gentlemen…maybe I will master this b… Valtra today.
Cheerio for now.
Carryfast:
The above picture shows one of your own arguments, in direct contradiction to the evidence that you yourself cite, as it appears on the screen when normal people read it. To help you, I have put the red arrows on it, so that each lie is connected to its own truth.
The web link to the graph was provided by you in the first place. This page of the thread is clogged up with you repeatedly arguing with yourself, seemingly without actually reading or understanding any of the arguments. Why bother?
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
0
The above picture shows one of your own arguments, in direct contradiction to the evidence that you yourself cite, as it appears on the screen when normal people read it. To help you, I have put the red arrows on it, so that each lie is connected to its own truth.
The web link to the graph was provided by you in the first place. This page of the thread is clogged up with you repeatedly arguing with yourself, seemingly without actually reading or understanding any of the arguments. Why bother?
As usual your answer to the questions asked just consist of insults but no actual numbers.I don’t see any arguments with myself there and the figures are consistent with what I’m saying in that (1) The abitrary,erroneous line,which you’ve drawn to represent the Marathon’s minimum SFC point,doesn’t show that my statement,concerning that point corresponding with an output of around 180 hp,is wrong and the TL12 in Marathon spec wasn’t a serious competitor in the market in the way which the Rolls 305 would have been ( ‘if’ the customers had been bright enough to spec it in a Crusader instead of the TL12 in a Marathon ) .
While,as I’ve said the TL12 in the T45 wasn’t a large improvement on that issue in that it still wasn’t competitive at that point with the older Rolls ( ‘throughout’ it’s useful speed range ) and at which point Rolls was well on the way to providing even better more powerful versions.All of which seems to be confirmed by history in the case of the fate of the TL12 in the T45 as opposed to Rolls engines. 
Who’s calling who a moron who’s trying,unsuccessfully,to re write history now. 
Carryfast:
Who’s calling who a moron who’s trying,unsuccessfully,to re write history now.
I didn’t call you moron. I titled the picture, “What a complete moron.” As well as failing to read the actual graph properly, like any 8 year old would, even one destined for life of floor-sweeping, you have even misconstrued the title. Why not just admit you made a mistake with the numbers?
newmercman:
I’m confused, what Ergo cabbed lorry had the Rolls 305?
In fact how many non military Rolls 305 engined lorries ever went into service?
I had a Matchbox Crusader and that had a Gardner 8LXB in it that I transplanted out of a promotional Guy Big J model. HTH…
Maybe you’re just conveniently confused because,the fact that Leyland’s management ( bankers and politicians ) decided to invest ( waste ) money,by putting the less efficient TL12 in a wagon with less room,in the form of the Marathon,and many buyers were backward in their thinking enough to buy it,when the Crusader was a better wagon with more room and a better more efficient outsourced engine,and then only years later,in the case of the T45,started to realise it,shows that Leyland’s problems had nothing whatsoever to do with it’s workers.
By the way no the Gardner ( rightly ) wasn’t one of the chosen outsourced engines which were ( eventually ) used in the T45 to replace the lame old TL12.It’s just that it took the British buyers that long to understand why. 
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
Who’s calling who a moron who’s trying,unsuccessfully,to re write history now.
I didn’t call you moron. I titled the picture, “What a complete moron.” As well as failing to read the actual graph properly, like any 8 year old would, even one destined for life of floor-sweeping, you have even misconstrued the title. Why not just admit you made a mistake with the numbers?
I did read the graph properly and didn’t get my figures wrong.Which is why it’s not me who put in a cross reference line which has no connection whatsoever to the argument in question,IE the Marathon’s power output at it’s minimum SFC point,and it’s not me who’s trying to re write history by trying to say that the Rolls engine didn’t totally outclass the TL12 in terms of outputs and fuel efficiency.Which is why the TL12 was ‘eventually’ quietly dumped in favour of using Rolls ( and ■■■■■■■ ) engines when Leyland’s management ( and it’s customers ) ‘eventually’,in typically British customer backward fashion,realised their mistake which Scammell’s engineers knew years before.
The surprising thing is that backward thinking still seems to be alive and well here amongst many posters who are still trying to re write history to make the TL12 competitive with Rolls engines.
Carryfast:
Maybe you’re just conveniently confused because,the fact that Leyland’s management ( bankers and politicians ) decided to invest ( waste ) money,by putting the less efficient TL12 in a wagon with less room,in the form of the Marathon,
The TL12 and RR engines had the same efficiency, according to the graphs you posted. You can’t read graphs, can you?
The Marathon had a more spacious cab than the Crusader- it had two bunks, which were amongst the widest in the business, in 1973. Even the short-sleeper Marathon had a competitive sleeping area. The Scammell just had a pigeon-loft, like a cheap aftermarket conversion. However, the Scammell did have an American-style front panel, which is why you assume its superiority.
You say you worked in the manufacturing industry. Did you ever make a decision which affected the product? Was a drawing ever released, which had your name in the “Drawn” or “Checked” box?
