ERF-NGC-European:
Coincidentally, DEANB has just posted an article about a UK (imported) KW K100E on the Heavy Haulage thread. It is a standard K100E 6x4 unit but, intriguingly, it has a ■■■■■■■ NTC 400B lump (delivering an alleged 600bhp) with a Fuller RT 11509 box. Now then, I’ve looked askance at the old K100E before - even sat in one once and wondered how uncomfortable it might be - but I might just have put up with this one in the late '70s (yes, it’s on a W-plate).
Really have to have some doubts regarding references to ‘600 hp’ 14 litre examples.That’s going to take around 1,500 lb/ft at 2,300 rpm which firstly would probably blow that transmission apart if I’ve got the code right ( around 1100 lb/ft ? ) and would probably mean more peak torque than an N14.Realistically that sort of power in the day was the reserve of the KTA not the 855.Also agree with nmm regarding the N14 v ISX but that applies to pushrod v OHC/CIH in general in my personal view.Bearing in mind that Scania seem to be able to combine pushrod technology with state of the art emissions control and 700 hp +.
cav551:
The ■■■■■■■ engine probably woke up some people to the fact that here was a diesel engine which you could actually ‘tune’. Most times it was really finding out that you needed to do so rather than wanted to do it.
As has been said they did tend to ‘go off’ after several thousand miles and require the injectors and valve clearances reset. There would either be a complaint of lack of power or of blacking. This was in reality quite a simple job - if you had the right tools to do it and these were in good condition - and of course the vital factor getting to do it frequently enough. The recommendation from ■■■■■■■ seems at this distance to have gone through more than one period of changing their mind about whether the OBC or IBC method was to be used. There was a lot more that you could do as well if the aim was to improve performance and you had the gear to do it…
Was it the case that other engines, without the fine adjustment facilities, just worked less well, or was the ■■■■■■■ more prone to going “off”, so requiring the extra controls?
That’s one job we did religiously on the Bewick ■■■■■■■ engine units and we had the tools to carry out the job, a bloody great Torque wrench was the main tool IIRC, but by regularly carrying out this procedure the engines gave next to no trouble. Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
That’s one job we did religiously on the Bewick ■■■■■■■ engine units and we had the tools to carry out the job, a bloody great Torque wrench was the main tool IIRC, but by regularly carrying out this procedure the engines gave next to no trouble. Cheers Dennis.
Maybe like the Detroit 71 and 92 series just ‘different’ and not as ‘difficult’ to set up as it’s sometimes made out and probably a lot simpler to maintain than a 60 series or ISX respectively.
■■■■■■■ seems to be unique in that it only makes diesel engines and doesn’t have a truck-marque of it’s own or other branches of production. There fore it has to be consistently well designed, reliable and have good customer support or otherwise it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. I think they pitch themselves as an everything to everybody engine. Not the greatest power output, not the greatest fuel consumption, not the worst reliability, not the worst fuel consumption, not the worst power output. In my opinion ■■■■■■■ has always had a good product and has kept up with the best of the opposition and out-lasted the rest. The ISX 15 would be my choice of engine if speccing a new truck for today’s construction and use regulations; I don’t think any other engine maker has any thing better on offer.
A friend of mine works on development at ■■■■■■■■ I have another (yes, I have TWO friends! ) who does similar work at Perkins!
I remember the tool used to set the injectors as being a small Snap-on torque wrench about 6 inches long Dennis, for head bolts we used a Swench (a torque multiplier or something like that, it was 40 years ago) which was a tool where you counted the ‘clicks’ when loosening the bolts and fastened them with the same number!
windrush:
A friend of mine works on development at ■■■■■■■■ I have another (yes, I have TWO friends! ) who does similar work at Perkins!
I remember the tool used to set the injectors as being a small Snap-on torque wrench about 6 inches long Dennis, for head bolts we used a Swench (a torque multiplier or something like that, it was 40 years ago) which was a tool where you counted the ‘clicks’ when loosening the bolts and fastened them with the same number!
Pete.
Aye Pete your right, it’s such a long while ago but we had all the tools for the job and our fitters were fully conversant with “the job” but that bloody great torque wrench sticks in my mind ! can’t recall how much it cost now but it wasn’t cheap Cheers Dennis.
windrush:
A friend of mine works on development at ■■■■■■■■ I have another (yes, I have TWO friends! ) who does similar work at Perkins!
I remember the tool used to set the injectors as being a small Snap-on torque wrench about 6 inches long Dennis, for head bolts we used a Swench (a torque multiplier or something like that, it was 40 years ago) which was a tool where you counted the ‘clicks’ when loosening the bolts and fastened them with the same number!
Pete.
I the snap on one Waughs used had a small dial-gauge on top 60 or 65 psi for the injectors was the setting me thinks :question: :slight_smile: all the 220 and 225/250 ■■■■■■■ Atkinson had the heads off or piston and liners fitted Waughs had 2 N-regs one with a full Atkinson sleeper and one with a full
ridding version very ltd access to the rear/rear-head no problem with the Jennings sleeper had to get a torque multiplier to do them two.
The rest was big torque wrench and tube(pop-eye)
One of th jobs that i hated was the fan belts adjust-fit new with the dynair fitted the ring of bolts around the pump lock ring and if the
copper ring wouldnt seal again one motor N-reg had 3 before it would seal you could do them/adjust from inside the cab but i found it better to take the
bumpers front rad cover and rad off to fit new water pumps fan belts etc on the atkinson borderers. -
If in winter the things had a water leak you could bet it was from the water rail o-rings or the small two bolt flange onto the heads
and the colour or should that be color sick nappy yellow for the 205-220 and pale mushroom soup for the 225/250 or for Kevmac`s ERF tango orange sorry Kev -
L10’s still got one ! 325 stc model
L 10’s sold really well in our area, these engines went very well for the time when fitted to 6 and 8 wheelers, up hill and down the other side as most were fitted with Jake brakes!
Have Scania yet mastered the art of fitting an engine brake as standard with the recent launch of the new models?
I’m fully aware of the retarders available but not many rigid tipper operations spec it due to weight and cost
I’ve pondered over the title of this thread and read the posts before adding my two pennyworth, the ■■■■■■■ engine was one I got to know quite well, most of the posts quote the engine as being reliable and I suppose generally it was although I doubt I could ever raise a cab and not find something to tweak, repair or replace, they leaked oil like a sieve and almost every one had coolant stains or coolant bubbling along the head gasket joints yet they would still plod on. I would say they were more of a drivers engine as they did what every driver wanted and coupled to a Fuller they made the perfect match. As far as the setting up process on the Injectors and Tappets went, it was considered by some fitters to be something that should be left either to someone else or not touched at all, in fact I discovered the gear for this operation had been conveniently placed on top of the canteen roof which was inside the workshop of the company I had recently started for. Needless to say I got looks that could of killed from some lads when I asked why it wasn’t being used, after that I pretty much done all the ■■■■■■■ top ends myself. It wasn’t a difficult or highly technical thing to carry out you just had to have patience, after a while when the routine and different settings became memorised the job wasn’t bad at all to do, I quite enjoyed it and drivers would feel the difference in performance. I didn’t think the L10 I later worked on was as good, ■■■■■■■ really made its name in this country with the big 14 L jobs which most drivers and fitters on here will recall and I believe that was the heyday. At the time when I was a fitter they certainly kept me busy very few could be said to have not had a spanner on them. Franky.
ChrisArbon:
■■■■■■■ seems to be unique in that it only makes diesel engines and doesn’t have a truck-marque of it’s own or other branches of production. There fore it has to be consistently well designed, reliable and have good customer support or otherwise it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. I think they pitch themselves as an everything to everybody engine. Not the greatest power output, not the greatest fuel consumption, not the worst reliability, not the worst fuel consumption, not the worst power output. In my opinion ■■■■■■■ has always had a good product and has kept up with the best of the opposition and out-lasted the rest. The ISX 15 would be my choice of engine if speccing a new truck for today’s construction and use regulations; I don’t think any other engine maker has any thing better on offer.
The sales pitch was EVERY APPLICATION.Never a more true word said.They are designed for every application,designed to be maintained and repaired in service,were ever that may be.
Some serious thought went into the design of each model,it had too.When its fitted in the hull of a boat and you cant get it out it has to fixed in the hull.Perfect examples-6 BTA,the cam followers were made shorter than the cam journal holes in the block.Reason being to extract them without taking the sump off and up ending the motor.855,remove the core plugs in the exhaust side of the heads.it then has the capability to run a water cooled exhaust manifold.
All smart stuff.
My Dads V8 ■■■■■■■ ford did 480,000 miles untouched until the fly wheel Sheared on regents street London ,fords said if it would do 500,000 they would fit a new engine free ,he says its trouble free running was due to him thrashing it which iam sure Denzil will agree ? After this he ran a120 Gardner powered A series followed by an mk2 Atki 180 Gardner which he pulled to bits every 3 yrs ,when 38 tonne came out a marathon came with a 250 ■■■■■■■ in it and never did more than 5 mpg sometimes 3 mpg it was 6 yrs old when he bought it and he rebuilt the engine straight away ,it lasted a further 5 yrs to be replaced by an ERF with a 240 turbo in that did 6-7 mpg which was 7 yrs old ,it did 2 yrs before a rebuild and 3 yrs later he parked it up because it lost its oil pressure and replaced it with a 6 yr old E14 320 which again did 3 yrs before rebuild ( including cam shaft ) and a further 7 yrs before it was completely knackered the 320 did around 7 mpg ,after all these ■■■■■■■ he liked the 410 rolls eagle the best which did 7.5 mpg at 44 tonne although there are good and bad rollers .i now run an 18 yr old m11 405 which still matches and somethings betters today’s mpg figures by modern lorries .
ERF-NGC-European:
Coincidentally, DEANB has just posted an article about a UK (imported) KW K100E on the Heavy Haulage thread. It is a standard K100E 6x4 unit but, intriguingly, it has a ■■■■■■■ NTC 400B lump (delivering an alleged 600bhp) with a Fuller RT 11509 box. Now then, I’ve looked askance at the old K100E before - even sat in one once and wondered how uncomfortable it might be - but I might just have put up with this one in the late '70s (yes, it’s on a W-plate).
Really have to have some doubts regarding references to ‘600 hp’ 14 litre examples.That’s going to take around 1,500 lb/ft at 2,300 rpm which firstly would probably blow that transmission apart if I’ve got the code right ( around 1100 lb/ft ? ) and would probably mean more peak torque than an N14.Realistically that sort of power in the day was the reserve of the KTA not the 855.Also agree with nmm regarding the N14 v ISX but that applies to pushrod v OHC/CIH in general in my personal view.Bearing in mind that Scania seem to be able to combine pushrod technology with state of the art emissions control and 700 hp +.
Yes, I must admit I thought along those lines. The RT 9095 was a tough old 'box and the heavy duty 11509 was even tougher; but when you think that it took the later RTX 14509 to cope with the ■■■■■■■ NTE 400 a handful of years later it does make you wonder what was going on there! Perhaps it was one of those classic power vs torque situations , which I know both you and I agree about! Robert
Mick Gould was/is a very enthusiastic ■■■■■■■ man having worked as a lad at Transport & Refrigeration of Tunbridge Wells. Brian and Eddie whose company it was were both ex fitters from Lowes of Paddock Wood and died in the wool ■■■■■■■ men. When Mick started up his recovery business he & his no 1 (his name escapes me after 30 years) very seriously breathed on the 855 engines in his US chassis wreckers. He was cetainly getting 600 bhp out of the ■■■■■■■ IIRC the parts were sourced in the US. They did however require a disciplined driving style I’m told, the opposite of let it lug in fact - plenty of revs and back off the throttle. It was also very important to keep a close eye on the diff temperatures.
railstaff:
Yes but the 12 series was the second to weakest of the TSO,s.The 15 series was ment for the HP engines.Supposedly different bearing sizes■■?
Yes. The figure was to do with the standard torque setting, as I’m sure you know! As for bearing sizes - just light the blue touch paper! lol. Robert
cav551:
Mick Gould was/is a very enthusiastic ■■■■■■■ man having worked as a lad at Transport & Refrigeration of Tunbridge Wells. Brian and Eddie whose company it was were both ex fitters from Lowes of Paddock Wood and died in the wool ■■■■■■■ men. When Mick started up his recovery business he & his no 1 (his name escapes me after 30 years) very seriously breathed on the 855 engines in his US chassis wreckers. He was cetainly getting 600 bhp out of the ■■■■■■■ IIRC the parts were sourced in the US. They did however require a disciplined driving style I’m told, the opposite of let it lug in fact - plenty of revs and back off the throttle. It was also very important to keep a close eye on the diff temperatures.
Yes, careless torque costs lives (of gearboxes and half-shafts, at least)! We forget sometimes how much more carefully we had to treat the clutch and accelerator pedals in those days. You’re right, I think, about the need to treat ‘let it lug’ with caution, as lugging too low could stress parts that other lagers couldn’t reach (so to speak).
I also think we should remember that stuff that came new to these shores was already ‘old hat’ in US. Re-reading that article I notice that the Kenworth K100E in question was a 1981 model (despite its plate). By that time we were already seeing beefed-up versions of the 9-sp and 13-sp Fullers. The 9-speed Fuller alone ranged, I think, from the RT 6609 to the heavy-duty RTX 16709H. The first figure denotes the standard torque setting load. Fuller was developing boxes comensurately with the increase in power and torque among engines. ■■■■■■■ and Fuller tended to go hand in hand in this regard, as I read it.
ERF-NGC-European:
it does make you wonder what was going on there! Perhaps it was one of those classic power vs torque situations , which I know both you and I agree about! Robert
This has more torque at peak power than an N14 at peak torque from 2 litres less.He obviously didn’t want to pull it down to peak torque in case it broke the dyno.
) who does similar work at Perkins! 
sick nappy yellow for the 205-220 and pale mushroom soup for the 225/250 or for Kevmac`s ERF tango orange sorry Kev 
