There’s been a lot hybrid lorries on the roads over the years I’ve seen pictures of an 8 wheeler tipper based on a K Series Dodge run by a firm called Harts then you had Killingbecks who ran many hybrid lorries Mervyn Thomas ran GUY Big Js with 350 ■■■■■■■ even Birds Groupage had a 142 fitted with a Eaton crash box many operators tried different drive lines and oddball ideas to find the best lorry to run I’ve even got a book which said somebody put a 180 Gardner in a Scania 81 !!! so this Crusader could have been around who knows ?
I’m more inclined to believe the hazy details are the product of a faded memory, so I hope the bloke sticks around 
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
He said Cat 450. Was the 3406 not available with about that power in the early 1980s?
[zb]
anorak: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
He said Cat 450. Was the 3406 not available with about that power in the early 1980s?
I think the 3406 B was only putting out around 425 + in the mid 1980’s using air to air intercooling which is doubtful that anyone would try to fit in front of the swing out rad on a Crusader.It’s obvious that it would have needed at least that spec to reach the output in question.It’s also obvious in that case that the engine would have needed to have been new and fitted around that time if so.The story seems to suggest that the job would probably have been done a good while before then.Which would possibly mean a 3406 A not B and therefore probably less than 400 hp in that case.The question in the case of a 3406 would be the timelines and issues and probable costs involved in converting a Crusader using a new 450 hp spec 3406 B that was then put into regular use at least in the early 1980’s assuming that’s the time in question.Whereas a 3408 would possibly explain everything concerning all the details provided at present. 
A3408 sounds more logical. Could if have been an 18 speed fuller which is 16 normal gears plus crawlers.
Im sure the gardner scania was posted on here somewhere think it was a samuel williams had it was a 110.
I think the crow had a 110 with a ■■■■■■■ or Perkins on it that was ex Sammy Williams.
An 18spd is to all intents a 16spd as you say Kev.
What’s the difference between a 3406 A, B and C?
If our man has made any errors in the specification of his old lorry, then surely the power output is a likely candidate for that? The Crusader came as a 12 litre six (RR) or a 9 litre V8 (8v71). What is the chance of an 18 litre V8 (3408) fitting?
[zb]
anorak:
What’s the difference between a 3406 A, B and C?If our man has made any errors in the specification of his old lorry, then surely the power output is a likely candidate for that? The Crusader came as a 12 litre six (RR) or a 9 litre V8 (8v71). What is the chance of an 18 litre V8 (3408) fitting?
The error your man made was to forget to include the specification of the Bunk(s). I did think that this particular thread was about Sleeper Cabs. This has got so far off, that maybe we could add specifications of Snow Chains hanging on the rear chassis crossmember or perhaps Buckets hanging on the front towing eye. 
[zb]
anorak:
What’s the difference between a 3406 A, B and C?If our man has made any errors in the specification of his old lorry, then surely the power output is a likely candidate for that? The Crusader came as a 12 litre six (RR) or a 9 litre V8 (8v71). What is the chance of an 18 litre V8 (3408) fitting?
I think it’s easier to mix up and forget the exact number of gears and spec of a fuller box than to mix up and forget the simple figure of 450.As I’ve said that figure probably wouldn’t be easy to obtain from a 3406,even if it was available,during the timeline described for fitment in a Crusader, without a lot of expense and aggravation,related to buying a new spec engine with intercooling.Which even then doesn’t seem to match any official factory outputs given for a 3406 anyway with them either being lower during the timeline which seems to be in question or possibly higher in later versions.
Against that we’ve got a chassis that’s known to accept fitment of a V8 and a probably cheaply obtainable 1970’s spec V8 CAT that coincidentally was often officially listed with the figure of 450 hp without any of the problems related to intercooling the beast considering the Scammell’s radiator set up.Assuming that we’re talking about a yard built special,by someone who’s described with a liking for building ‘weird and wonderful Scammell specials’ ,all it would take then is the answer to a few tape measurement figures as to how much spare room was left around an 8V71 and the difference in overall measurements between the 3408 and 8V71 bearing in mind the average American cab over didn’t need twice as much room between it’s rails and under the cab to fit a 3408 where an 8V71 would go just because the 3408 had around twice the cubic capacity.That’s because there’s generally no direct corresponding relationship whatsoever between internal capacity and overall engine size .
Archie Paice:
[zb]
anorak:
What’s the difference between a 3406 A, B and C?If our man has made any errors in the specification of his old lorry, then surely the power output is a likely candidate for that? The Crusader came as a 12 litre six (RR) or a 9 litre V8 (8v71). What is the chance of an 18 litre V8 (3408) fitting?
The error your man made was to forget to include the specification of the Bunk(s). I did think that this particular thread was about Sleeper Cabs. This has got so far off, that maybe we could add specifications of Snow Chains hanging on the rear chassis crossmember or perhaps Buckets hanging on the front towing eye.
I think considering what might have been brought to light in this case hopefully Rikki wouldn’t mind the small detour off topic.If not maybe the mods could shift it to the Scammell Crusader topic.
Carryfast:
… there’s generally no direct corresponding relationship whatsoever between internal capacity and overall engine size .
FFS.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
… there’s generally no direct corresponding relationship whatsoever between internal capacity and overall engine size .FFS.
Which part of ‘direct corresponding’ didn’t you understand.
So are you saying that the 3408 was twice as big overall dimensionally as an 8V71. 
We tried a couple of the earlier Mercedes Actros I think they were on a R plate on a 3 month demo they weren’t the high cab just a standard sleeper but I thought they were quite spacious with a decent amount of storage but the bed was quite uncomfortable and with me being 6ft 2 tall it wasn’t long enough
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
… there’s generally no direct corresponding relationship whatsoever between internal capacity and overall engine size .FFS.
Which part of ‘direct corresponding’ didn’t you understand.
So are you saying that the 3408 was twice as big overall dimensionally as an 8V71.
It was the “no” and the “whatsoever” which made the sentence wrong. Wally.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
… there’s generally no direct corresponding relationship whatsoever between internal capacity and overall engine size .FFS.
Which part of ‘direct corresponding’ didn’t you understand.
So are you saying that the 3408 was twice as big overall dimensionally as an 8V71.
It was the “no” and the “whatsoever” which made the sentence wrong. Wally.
Yes none whatsoever because if there was any relationship whatsoever between the two then obviously the 3408 would be twice as big overall as an 8v71 which trust me it wasn’t.
To be fair hear i think carryfast is right. If this lorry had a 450 cat the 3408 seems the logical answer.
Ad to would it fit i havent a clue but a scania offered a big v8 fiat had a big v8 merc and man offered v10s under there motors so it may have been possible.
Anyway prehaps sleeper cabs should go back on topic.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
… there’s generally no direct corresponding relationship whatsoever between internal capacity and overall engine size .FFS.
Which part of ‘direct corresponding’ didn’t you understand.
So are you saying that the 3408 was twice as big overall dimensionally as an 8V71.
It was the “no” and the “whatsoever” which made the sentence wrong. Wally.
Yes none whatsoever because if there was any relationship whatsoever between the two then obviously the 3408 would be twice as big overall as an 8v71 which trust me it wasn’t.
I’m gonna go and get my chainsaw bored and stroked out to 18 litres tomorrow. Can’t wait.
“None whatsoever”? “Direct corresponding”? Without even considering engine design, the dimenions will be proportional to the cube root of the capacity. Was it English or maths that you bunked* off at school, both, or everything?
- Reference to original post, for those sick of listening to the above crap.
newmercman:
I’m more inclined to believe the hazy details are the product of a faded memory, so I hope the bloke sticks around
x2
After years of uncomfortable, sleepless nights in non-sleeper cabs, I didn’t give two hoots what was under the cab as long as it had a bed behind the seats. 1626 Merc was my idea of the perfect truck at one time.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
… there’s generally no direct corresponding relationship whatsoever between internal capacity and overall engine size .FFS.
Which part of ‘direct corresponding’ didn’t you understand.
So are you saying that the 3408 was twice as big overall dimensionally as an 8V71.
It was the “no” and the “whatsoever” which made the sentence wrong. Wally.
Yes none whatsoever because if there was any relationship whatsoever between the two then obviously the 3408 would be twice as big overall as an 8v71 which trust me it wasn’t.
I’m gonna go and get my chainsaw bored and stroked out to 18 litres tomorrow. Can’t wait.
“None whatsoever”? “Direct corresponding”? Without even considering engine design, the dimenions will be proportional to the cube root of the capacity. Was it English or maths that you bunked* off at school, both, or everything?
Really so you’re saying that a 16V71 has to,at a minimum,be the same overall dimensions as a 3408 and vice versa. 