Going back to the original question, “Best sleeper” then if like me you took a day cab around europe in the late '60’s, belive me, ANY sleeper if you were lucky enough to get one, was the dogs… 
An F88 twin bunk, was pure luxury…
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blimey I was still at school when that thing was registered but if I was going to make up a load of bollox about a Crusader I’d have had the sense to at least have had the only 8V71 T powered Crusader with a 13 speed fuller in it which really would have sorted out a 141 but it probably still wouldn’t have had as much room in it’s cab.
barringtondieselclub.co.za/8 … iesel.html
According to this, your engine has only 340bhp at 2,000rpm, against the 141’s 375. The 8v71t develops 960lbft at 1,400, the Scania 1100lbft at 1300. You would not “sort out” a 141 with that engine, unless you were on the bunk, asleep, having your happy dreams.
As I’ve shown elsewhere there was more than just one rating for those engines depending on injector spec etc and even the standard non turbo put out 318 hp so you can take 340 for a turbo version with a pinch of salt.Regardless of our usual arguments there’d have been a lot more chance of getting around 375 hp out of a turbocharged 8V71 motor than of finding a 1972 Crusader with a 450 hp CAT in it and a 16 speed fuller. 
kr79:
Good to see you back geoff ive been worrird about you.
There was an article in T&D this month about a bloke who restored a crusader sleeper and it doesnt look bad for domething of thar era.
Better than an ERGO at least which is what I spent ages and wore out a computer trying to tell everyone and which I’ve only just managed to afford to replace after paying for the petrol bills of a trip on the continent.Hence the long absence.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blimey I was still at school when that thing was registered but if I was going to make up a load of bollox about a Crusader I’d have had the sense to at least have had the only 8V71 T powered Crusader with a 13 speed fuller in it which really would have sorted out a 141 but it probably still wouldn’t have had as much room in it’s cab.barringtondieselclub.co.za/8 … iesel.html
According to this, your engine has only 340bhp at 2,000rpm, against the 141’s 375. The 8v71t develops 960lbft at 1,400, the Scania 1100lbft at 1300. You would not “sort out” a 141 with that engine, unless you were on the bunk, asleep, having your happy dreams.As I’ve shown elsewhere there was more than just one rating for those engines depending on injector spec etc and even the standard non turbo put out 318 hp so you can take 340 for a turbo version with a pinch of salt.Regardless of our usual arguments there’d have been a lot more chance of getting around 375 hp out of a turbocharged 8V71 motor than of finding a 1972 Crusader with a 450 hp CAT in it and a 16 speed fuller.
What was the most powerful 8v71t automotive spec available from the factory, in the 1970s? What peak power and torque did it develop, at which engine speeds? All I could find was that 362bhp/2100rpm one, plus some lower-powered versions. All of them made much less than 1000lbft, usually at 1400rpm.
The bedford tm offered a 400bhp one not sure when launched though
kr79:
The bedford tm offered a 400bhp one not sure when launched though
It was an 8v92. IIRC, it came out at the start of the 1980s, by which time Scania, Fiat and Volvo and Mercedes all had the same or more power.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blimey I was still at school when that thing was registered but if I was going to make up a load of bollox about a Crusader I’d have had the sense to at least have had the only 8V71 T powered Crusader with a 13 speed fuller in it which really would have sorted out a 141 but it probably still wouldn’t have had as much room in it’s cab.barringtondieselclub.co.za/8 … iesel.html
According to this, your engine has only 340bhp at 2,000rpm, against the 141’s 375. The 8v71t develops 960lbft at 1,400, the Scania 1100lbft at 1300. You would not “sort out” a 141 with that engine, unless you were on the bunk, asleep, having your happy dreams.As I’ve shown elsewhere there was more than just one rating for those engines depending on injector spec etc and even the standard non turbo put out 318 hp so you can take 340 for a turbo version with a pinch of salt.Regardless of our usual arguments there’d have been a lot more chance of getting around 375 hp out of a turbocharged 8V71 motor than of finding a 1972 Crusader with a 450 hp CAT in it and a 16 speed fuller.
What was the most powerful 8v71t automotive spec available from the factory, in the 1970s? What peak power and torque did it develop, at which engine speeds? All I could find was that 362bhp/2100rpm one, plus some lower-powered versions. All of them made much less than 1000lbft, usually at 1400rpm.
Hey Anorak, please don’t do that because our friend is back in town 
A bit out this thread but with our friend back it must be possible
But by the way,sometimes you may not be obsessed by paper,but you must behind the wheel to try how much real power an engine has. But by that the fuel consumption must be within the norm as well.
Some engines lower powered and less torquey as for example a Scania were much faster,and with the help of a good geared more as 10 speed gearbox. But by that you must compare the fuel consumption too. And mostly it wasn’t.
1, Scania was Always one of the must fuel efficient engines had an engine which could hang on.
2, the scania’s of course lost lots by missing gears 10 was never enough ok it was enough before the end of the '60’s. But by then 6 speed splitters,13 speed Fullers and Volvo’s 16 speed were much better geared.
The only here that could beat the Scania 140 V8 was the F89 with a comparable fuel consumption.
If all engines at a test were given no more as the same fuel Scania only needed you would see the other go backwards on a climb and with the same gearbox/ratio revs.
bye Eric,
[zb]
anorak:kr79:
The bedford tm offered a 400bhp one not sure when launched thoughIt was an 8v92. IIRC, it came out at the start of the 1980s, by which time Scania, Fiat and Volvo and Mercedes all had the same or more power.
The usual output of the turbocharged 8V92 was around 435 hp with a 475 hp option being no problem,non turbo 8V71 was 318.As a rule of thumb forced induction can add anything up to around a potential 30 % to a non turbo engine and there’s no reason to think that wouldn’t also have applied to the 8V71 with some figures being out there,at least in military applications,showing that type of potential.It’s obvious that euro type fuel consumption compromises then needed to be factored into the equation at least in the case of the 8V92 TM.
In the case of the issue of the '72 Crusader in question as I’ve said I think that ‘if’ anyone ‘had’ possibly ever wanted to spec such a beast then it would have been more likely and easier to have been along the lines of an 8V71 T with a 13 speed fuller,than any possibility of it being fitted with a mythical 450 CAT let alone a 16 speed fuller 
.
Which just leaves the issue that there was probably more chance of seeing a GUY Big J with an 8LXB in it flying along the M4 overtaking a V8 Scania than a '72 Crusader with a 450 CAT let alone 16 speed fuller in it .In either case the Scania would definitely have had the best sleeper. 
Although I’m saying nothing about the TM with a 475 hp 8V92 in it,which ‘I would have liked to have’ sorted out a few V8 Scanias with back in the day ‘if’ only Bedford had ever built one and ‘if’ only I’d have been lucky enough to have ever found a British employer who’d have specced one and who’d then have given me the keys.
puggybear:
This was actually my unit,back in the days of AM CB’s,analogue tacho’s,speed restrictors being unthought of and heated mirrors being a mere rumour. Sid [Beckwith] had it sent away to have a proper sleeper conversion done-prior to this one,two others had the ‘pigeon-house’ conversion. No curtains,no night heater-but I didn’t give a hoot. This ole beastie had a 450 Cat lump-unheard of,back then. All the others [Sid had a fleet of Crusaders,plus one rigid AEC 6-legger] had 290 RR lumps. This little sweetie made mince of 'em when we would come out of Magor steelworks,get across the bridge,then ‘Big It’ in a flat-out drag up the hill toward Chippenham [last one in paid for all the teas].
I even out-pulled Alans Scania 143,up that long hill.
Split it down,keep the power steady,pull alongside him,split again,flatten the loud pedal,leave him trailing.
[not forgetting to make ‘innocent’ remarks about pansy Scanias over the CB,while grinning like a loon]
Yeah…good days. Not so many comforts-but we didn’t care.
We had CB radio,a 16 speed twin-split Fuller to ensure good average speed,plus a proper,comfortable bed.
Plus,in my case,a big Cat lump. Life was good.
Though,to be fair,the other lads were all pretty complimentary about their Roller lumps.
This is She…my unit.
A CRUSADER with a CAT engine and 16 SPEED box is this a wind WTF
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blimey I was still at school when that thing was registered but if I was going to make up a load of bollox about a Crusader I’d have had the sense to at least have had the only 8V71 T powered Crusader with a 13 speed fuller in it which really would have sorted out a 141 but it probably still wouldn’t have had as much room in it’s cab.barringtondieselclub.co.za/8 … iesel.html
According to this, your engine has only 340bhp at 2,000rpm, against the 141’s 375. The 8v71t develops 960lbft at 1,400, the Scania 1100lbft at 1300. You would not “sort out” a 141 with that engine, unless you were on the bunk, asleep, having your happy dreams.As I’ve shown elsewhere there was more than just one rating for those engines depending on injector spec etc and even the standard non turbo put out 318 hp so you can take 340 for a turbo version with a pinch of salt.Regardless of our usual arguments there’d have been a lot more chance of getting around 375 hp out of a turbocharged 8V71 motor than of finding a 1972 Crusader with a 450 hp CAT in it and a 16 speed fuller.
or a BIG J with a 240 percy
This is a thread about sleeper cabs…come on, get it back on track…
I thought the Leyland Roadtrain was a decent comfy cab we had 2 on our fleet plus a few years later an 80 Series which was basically the same cab shell but with a upgraded interior
gazsa401:
I thought the Leyland Roadtrain was a decent comfy cab we had 2 on our fleet plus a few years later an 80 Series which was basically the same cab shell but with a upgraded interior
I agree with you, We had one of each & found them OK, we liked the low level bed, So the seats could recline right back, Regards Larry.
Thank’s for clearing that up Mr Bear, there are some on here that are just out to have a bit of wind up using a different avatar, and as you are a new member with only a few post’s it looked very suspicious.
I spent quite a lot of time in IvecoTrubo Stars, after a 22 hour Friday / Saturday morning shift round northern Italy or Spain the bunk was good enough for sleeping on. If I remember right it was fairly soft and plenty wide, easy enough to get in and out of as well.
Jeff…
puggybear:
Jelliot:
Dear Mr Bear, or may I call you Puggy.
I’m not saying you didn’t have a Cat powered Scammell that was really fast, as I wasn’t really paying much notice to your situation at the point in time. But given the sharpness of the photo you have posted and the fact that it doesn’t have a background it looks a lot like a photo of a model truck.Jeff…
Look,I do apologise. I was just mooching through a website of trucks that were once common on British roads and was very happily surprised to find a picture of the AEC I mentioned Sid having. Then,I found a pic of one of his Crusaders and it was one I actually drove. No,I didn’t take a photo of a photo then try to upload it,I transferred the pic I found on that website to here because I thought it was amazing to find,plus interesting as it WAS the opnly Crusader I’ve ever known to have a Cat lump…plus I knew how to.
Me trying to take a photo of a photo then try to upload it,then try to transfer it…well,I thought that one was much sharpwer and more professional than my one as it isn’t cluttered with old pallets,etc. I just didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition for using a pic of a unit I once drove rather than the slightly blurry one I have that is now approaching 28 years old. Yes,I drove THAT Crusader for Sid Beckwith. Head for Little Waltham from Chelmsford;get past the hospital turning,our entrance into the drive up and around to the pumps then into the yard was on the left. The yard is still therte-tho today I believe it’s marked for development.Yes,I did the brick and the steel runs. Yes,I outpulled Alan’s Scania-yes,I made a mistake,you are correct,I will flay myself alive as penance for not noticing I didn’t spot the error-it was a 2 NOT a 3. Yes,ONE vehicle had a limiter and that was driven by Marigold. Yes,ONE vehicle had a Cat. Yes,it had a 4-over4 range-change Fuller box,with splitter.I had no idea you were all so determined to pick holes in everyone who isn’t you.
I also drove for HeavyHaul,Welch’s,both the Keyes brothers,and George Martin.
Right now,I drive a ro-ro w&d for Veolia. It’s a Volvo FM. I swap the skips on council amenity sites.
Ok-get started. You MUST be able to pick more holes.
I apologise for disturbing your mutual admiration society.
Again,I apologise for causing you all so much consternation for using a picture of my old unit that I found on an old trucks sight. I was just so chuffed to find it that. I didn’t even know there WERE any pics of Crusaders on the web. It never occurred to me. Ok-I am sorry you all have felt the need to gang up.
I can’t do anything about that,other than leave. Having just found the place,that’s sad,but c’est la vie.All I can say on departing is;if any of you find a pic of the 89 I drove for HeavyHaul-don’t tell me.
Pics of units you’ve actually driven only lead to arguments. Apparently.
Me again Puggy, both me and my father worked for Phil Dyke at Heavyhaul, Dad (john gullen) started just after the last 89 left, and was on and off with him until 97. In that time he had two 111’s (one them being the now famous VVW 909S Essex International 141, and yes, it was originaly a 111), a Breif spell on the White Road commander, two F12’s, a year old Foden 4410 (from the Tanhire takeover) and the last motor was an F16 (now sold and restored in Ireland). I was on there from 92 to 94 as mate and rearsteer’sman. Still see Phil from time to time, his son Lee does alot of the running of the buisness now.
A friend of mine Mark Murrell worked for Martins in the mid-80’s, driving a 111 on stock down to italy, on one of his many spells away from driving Gardner 240 powered B series for his dads firm Farming Supplies Ltd.
I’d certainly would’nt be surprised if the Scammell had a Cat, old Syd was always often building some weird and wonderful Scammell specials, incidentley, Micks never got the Sleeper, he rolled it on the A1 with a load of apples before it was fitted
Chris.
STRAIGHT EIGHT:
I’d certainly would’nt be surprised if the Scammell had a Cat, old Syd was always often building some weird and wonderful Scammell specials, incidentley, Micks never got the Sleeper, he rolled it on the A1 with a load of apples before it was fitted
Chris.
Knowing the Crusader’s ability to accept a V8 and the reference to 450 hp what if it was actually fitted with a 3408 and the fuller was ‘just’ a 13 speed remembered wrongly as a 16 speed.That would be a better mythical beast than any Guy Big J with an 8LXB in it and probably one of the best trucks ever put together in Britain and probably be the best story ever told on trucknet if it’s true.
I think Puggy what you’ve done mate is made a remark about a Scania being out pulled or even bettered I think that counts as blasphamy you should no better that you can only praise Scanias because according to some there the holy grail
Carryfast:
STRAIGHT EIGHT:
I’d certainly would’nt be surprised if the Scammell had a Cat, old Syd was always often building some weird and wonderful Scammell specials, incidentley, Micks never got the Sleeper, he rolled it on the A1 with a load of apples before it was fitted
Chris.Knowing the Crusader’s ability to accept a V8 and the reference to 450 hp what if it was actually fitted with a 3408 and the fuller was ‘just’ a 13 speed remembered wrongly as a 16 speed.That would be a better mythical beast than any Guy Big J with an 8LXB in it and probably one of the best trucks ever put together in Britain and probably be the best story ever told on trucknet if it’s true.
As I said, stranger thinks have happened, a 3408 would certainly leave a 142 for dead. A 13spd would be the logical choice behind one of them, or maybe a 15spd.
Btw Geoffrey, the new computer talks a lot more sense than your old one did
gazsa401:
I think Puggy what you’ve done mate is made a remark about a Scania being out pulled or even bettered I think that counts as blasphamy you should no better that you can only praise Scanias because according to some there the holy grail
If the mysterious beast is as I’m thinking it might be it would have more than just ‘better’ than a Scania.
newmercman:
Carryfast:
STRAIGHT EIGHT:
I’d certainly would’nt be surprised if the Scammell had a Cat, old Syd was always often building some weird and wonderful Scammell specials, incidentley, Micks never got the Sleeper, he rolled it on the A1 with a load of apples before it was fitted
Chris.Knowing the Crusader’s ability to accept a V8 and the reference to 450 hp what if it was actually fitted with a 3408 and the fuller was ‘just’ a 13 speed remembered wrongly as a 16 speed.That would be a better mythical beast than any Guy Big J with an 8LXB in it and probably one of the best trucks ever put together in Britain and probably be the best story ever told on trucknet if it’s true.
As I said, stranger thinks have happened, a 3408 would certainly leave a 142 for dead. A 13spd would be the logical choice behind one of them, or maybe a 15spd.
Btw Geoffrey, the new computer talks a lot more sense than your old one did
It all seems to be consistent with a liking for old Brit wagons using American engine and driveline componentry to me.I’d bet Bewick would have hated that wagon.