ECs and ECXs had both Signatures and 550bhp Cat engines, according to this other thread:
viewtopic.php?t=108189&start=30
To add to the above posts, I reckon the EC was the best-looking ERF, while the ECX was one of the worst.
[zb]
anorak:
ECs and ECXs had both Signatures and 550bhp Cat engines, according to this other thread:
viewtopic.php?t=108189&start=30
To add to the above posts, I reckon the EC was the best-looking ERF, while the ECX was one of the worst.
Signature appeared in 2001 to take over from N14,that would have to be a very very late EC to have signature fitted.Could well be,im no expert on ERF.
newmercman:
Top power from Daf at the time of the 95 was 430hp, with the launch of the XF it rose to 480hp. I did the first road test of the 95XF530 for TRUCK mag and the ■■■■■■■ topic came up during the test, Daf had to turn the wick up on their own lump as there wasn’t going to be a euro3 version of the big ■■■■■■■ based on the limited sales of Daf, ERF and Foden.I never got the opportunity to drive an N14 engined Daf, which was a disappointment as the Daf chaps reckoned it was an animal. Only problem I could see was the 16spd ZF behind it, when it would suit a 13/18spd Fuller much better.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
I did do a return trip Netherlands - Italy crossing the Alps with one of the first, but well run in Daf 95 N14. Indeed a real animal. Smooth but strong puller. Smoother then my own lhd Foden N14 410. C-brake made less noise compared to my own Jake, but also slightly less effective. Altough I was made to understand C-brake and exhaust brake operated simultaneously on the DAF.(I’m still not sure about this). My own contacts with ■■■■■■■ told me they where not involved in this ■■■■■■■■■■■ adventure. Support for Daf N14 was through DAF. The reasoning behind this was DAF’s own tuning of the engine. According to ■■■■■■■ people this had to do with noise from te C-brake. DAF wanted a high power machine, but it needed to have some sort of enhanced exhaust brake system but still comply to Austria noise regulating on trans Alpine routes. The natural home market for such machines. At the time both Mercedes and Volvo came to market with high power, with enhanced engine braking on that market. The engine braking technology in modern days PACCAR - DAF engines may well find its roots in DAF N14 adventure. Very small in sold numbers but maybe more significant in developing.
On gearboxes I agree, a DAF cabbed N-14 500 coupled to a Fuller 18 would be my dream trans Alpine machine. Even today.
Regards
Rolf
Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-T335 met Tapatalk
rolfkerkhof:
I did do a return trip Netherlands - Italy crossing the Alps with one of the first, but well run in Daf 95 N14. Indeed a real animal. Smooth but strong puller. Smoother then my own lhd Foden N14 410. C-brake made less noise compared to my own Jake, but also slightly less effective. Altough I was made to understand C-brake and exhaust brake operated simultaneously on the DAF.(I’m still not sure about this). My own contacts with ■■■■■■■ told me they where not involved in this ■■■■■■■■■■■ adventure. Support for Daf N14 was through DAF. The reasoning behind this was DAF’s own tuning of the engine. According to ■■■■■■■ people this had to do with noise from te C-brake. DAF wanted a high power machine, but it needed to have some sort of enhanced exhaust brake system but still comply to Austria noise regulating on trans Alpine routes. The natural home market for such machines. At the time both Mercedes and Volvo came to market with high power, with enhanced engine braking on that market. The engine braking technology in modern days PACCAR - DAF engines may well find its roots in DAF N14 adventure. Very small in sold numbers but maybe more significant in developing.On gearboxes I agree, a DAF cabbed N-14 500 coupled to a Fuller 18 would be my dream trans Alpine machine. Even today.
Regards
Rolf
Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-T335 met Tapatalk
More good in-depth knowledge being shared here. Welcome to the madhouse Rolf.
I wonder why DAF stopped doing “big” engines? Given that ■■■■■■■ is still (again, correct me if I am wrong) available in Paccar chassis in the US, you would have thought that a 105XF Signature would be a great addition to the range. The market for 600+bhp vehicles is strong enough for the other makes to design their own in-house 15 litre engines. They could assemble them at Leyland.
rolfkerkhof:
newmercman:
Top power from Daf at the time of the 95 was 430hp, with the launch of the XF it rose to 480hp. I did the first road test of the 95XF530 for TRUCK mag and the ■■■■■■■ topic came up during the test, Daf had to turn the wick up on their own lump as there wasn’t going to be a euro3 version of the big ■■■■■■■ based on the limited sales of Daf, ERF and Foden.I never got the opportunity to drive an N14 engined Daf, which was a disappointment as the Daf chaps reckoned it was an animal. Only problem I could see was the 16spd ZF behind it, when it would suit a 13/18spd Fuller much better.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
I did do a return trip Netherlands - Italy crossing the Alps with one of the first, but well run in Daf 95 N14. Indeed a real animal. Smooth but strong puller. Smoother then my own lhd Foden N14 410. C-brake made less noise compared to my own Jake, but also slightly less effective. Altough I was made to understand C-brake and exhaust brake operated simultaneously on the DAF.(I’m still not sure about this). My own contacts with ■■■■■■■ told me they where not involved in this ■■■■■■■■■■■ adventure. Support for Daf N14 was through DAF. The reasoning behind this was DAF’s own tuning of the engine. According to ■■■■■■■ people this had to do with noise from te C-brake. DAF wanted a high power machine, but it needed to have some sort of enhanced exhaust brake system but still comply to Austria noise regulating on trans Alpine routes. The natural home market for such machines. At the time both Mercedes and Volvo came to market with high power, with enhanced engine braking on that market. The engine braking technology in modern days PACCAR - DAF engines may well find its roots in DAF N14 adventure. Very small in sold numbers but maybe more significant in developing.
On gearboxes I agree, a DAF cabbed N-14 500 coupled to a Fuller 18 would be my dream trans Alpine machine. Even today.
Regards
Rolf
Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-T335 met Tapatalk
Which of course is probably what the Foden Falcon would have been, and why Paccar would not build it!
rolfkerkhof:
On gearboxes I agree, a DAF cabbed N-14 500 coupled to a Fuller 18 would be my dream trans Alpine machine. Even today.Regards
Rolf
Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-T335 met Tapatalk
I agree with this. I did a lot of long-haul work with DAF 95 (Spacecab and Super-spacecab) units and liked them - lovely to handle and comfy to live in. When the Cu14:500 version came in I thought, ‘at long last, a proper European unit with a perfect driveline!’ So you can imagine my disappointment when I discovered that they were fitted with ZF syncro boxes. I spoke to drivers of these beasts who reported that they pulled well but were apparently thirstier than their DAF-engined stablemates. I would most definitely have gone out of my way to work with one of these with an 18-sp Fuller in it. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
I spoke to drivers of these beasts who reported that they pulled well but were apparently thirstier than their DAF engined stablemates
Not much point in having a 500hp monster under the cab if you drive it like a 400hp engine in the pursuit of mpg!
I myself am a lover of high hp engines, I’ve had the F16 and FH16, the V8s from IVECO and Scania and the sole reason I bought them all was because they went like excrement off a digging implement. Not the best business model I’m sure, but I’m still here and still have my pedal to the metal in a lorry equivalent of a hot rod.
I should probably grow up now I’m closer to a telegram from her majesty than I am to the maternity ward, but I can’t see the benefit myself.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Shame they were lhd .
newmercman:
ERF-NGC-European:
I spoke to drivers of these beasts who reported that they pulled well but were apparently thirstier than their DAF engined stablematesNot much point in having a 500hp monster under the cab if you drive it like a 400hp engine in the pursuit of mpg!
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Absolutely! And here’s a fine example of a DAF 95 SSC with a Cu14:500 
. Robert
To save polluting the AEC V8 or Marathon threads I’ll mention this here.
Much is being made about the AEC V8 being a bad idea but let us not forget that the much admired ■■■■■■■ engine company managed to get themselves into an equally if not bigger mess with their disasterous V6 VIM engine. In comparison to the AEC V8 it is even worse in just about every respect. The warranty costs of the VIM and the 8 cylinder VINE engine were predicted to exceed the dividend paid to shareholders over the relevant two year period. The European director of ■■■■■■■ is quoted as saying : " The oversquares didn’t work …they weren’t anywhere near developed.We had decided to leapfrog a new technology, which was very unusual, and very risky, and it cost us a bloody fortune."
It is interesting to note that the same senior management pressures were being applied in Columbus as in Southall.
cav551:
…
It is interesting to note that the same senior management pressures were being applied in Columbus as in Southall.
It’s always the same when you have a salesman in charge. At Leyland it was Donald Stokes; buggered if I can remember the ■■■■■■■ man’s name, but they both made the same mistake, which is thinking you can speed engineering up by adding extra people. What you do is mulitply the communication overhead, so the actual increase in the speed of the work is less than the increase in the budget. In addition, the time taken for some of the work is fixed anyway- durability testing, for example, so cutting the development period in half more than doubles the necessary speed of the work. Things are overlooked, and it is easy for career-minded bs merchants to get rubbish decisions past the boss, when he is ignorant.
At least they had a go. Nowadays, we have “incremental innovation”, which results in everyone doing not much, slowly, all together. With the emissions/safety rules, there is even a nice simple timetable for the changes.
Not to mention the Val and Vale which were scaled down Vim and Vine.So not just AEC with problems.
The whole idea of a seriously oversquare Vee engine was an attractive and legitimate line of research at the time both in the USA and the UK, with an equally attractive business case behind it to boot. So attractive that it ended up in a court battle between ■■■■■■■ and General Motors.
The ■■■■■■■ equivalent of Donald Stokes was Irwin Miller.
cav551:
The whole idea of a seriously oversquare Vee engine was an attractive and legitimate line of research at the time both in the USA and the UK, with an equally attractive business case behind it to boot.
When all the evidence suggests the opposite. 
On that note exactly what were the ‘failures’ in question.Would they have had any connection to the idea of resulting excessive stress in the piston to crankshaft component chain for example ?.
Everything at the time is done for the right reason,40 years later you realise it was wrong.Perkins at the time with the 510,540 and 640(think that’s right?)were a thorn in ■■■■■■■ side especially the ford/perkins joint venture.
Carryfast:
cav551:
The whole idea of a seriously oversquare Vee engine was an attractive and legitimate line of research at the time both in the USA and the UK, with an equally attractive business case behind it to boot.When all the evidence suggests the opposite.
On that note exactly what were the ‘failures’ in question.Would they have had any connection to the idea of resulting excessive stress in the piston to crankshaft component chain for example ?.
Funny how this article about ■■■■■■■ engineers’ thinking reads almost exactly the same as article about the thinking of those AEC engineers. Notice carefully WHY both companies are going down this route and it has absolutely nothing to do with the internals of the engine.
But then I assume we are supposed to believe that it is OK for ■■■■■■■ engineers to havedone so when it was entirely wrong for the AEC’s to persue the same.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … e-v-engine
Just to list one failure type from warranty reports. With the vee engine revving faster and reaching valve bounce speed, sometimes attributable to the PT fuel pump, valve clearances were critical, when these opened up a dropped valve caused by over revving often resulting in a hole in the piston, frequently followed by total destruction.
So nothing whatsoever to do with stress in the reciprocating components. Although they did end up somewhat condition stressed I imagine. 