cav551:
At that time certainly one of the gearbox manufacturers was telling you not to preselect… I thought it was ZF.
It couldn’t have been ZF because the split only went through by operation of the clutch.
More like torque sensing Fuller 13 speed which was operated by load change at the accelerator ?.On that note there could understandably be confusion between the two types of actuation in that case.From memory and from what I’ve heard since probably myself included. 
I would say that ZF were advocating preselection, rather than Fuller, as there is no load on a clutch actuated splitter until the clutch is disengaged, whereas in the Fuller the split is poised waiting for the moment there’s a break in engine load.
cav551:
At that time certainly one of the gearbox manufacturers was telling you not to preselect… I thought it was ZF.
Pat Kennett devoted a whole article to pre-selecting splitters some years ago. From what I remember, he stated that on certain 'boxes the splitter shouldn’t be pre-selected too far in advance because it wore out the mechanism, but that on others it didn’t do any harm but that in any case it was bad practice because it’s too easy to forget whether or not you preselected. 
Robert
@ CAV551
@ Carryfast
@ newmercman
Three posts just above this one: all your points are directly related. Quite some time ago, I posted a Pat Kennett article on the ‘Lorries with 13-speed Fuller’ thread because it showed why some versions of that 'box could be split without clutch activation and some couldn’t. That article also mentions the issue of pre-selecting splits in the last paragraph: on a Fuller you can only pre-select splits without damage if the activation method is by indirect feed (ie you have to use the clutch for splits). I’ve reproduced that piece again, below. Robert
robert1952:
in any case it was bad practice because it’s too easy to forget whether or not you preselected.
In most cases I found it second nature to pre select the splitter control where I’d need it for the next shift up or down without even thinking about it as that’s how I was taught to use them from day 1.IE at least in my case with hindsight and more knowledge I think I probably used the 13 speed Fuller wrongly at least in the case of the MAN and maybe in the TM installations on that basis.On that note I think the Spicer was also like the ZF,in being clutch actuated,not Fuller in that regard ?.
Carryfast:
ramone:
I`ve had a few 2800 ATIs and they were pretty gutless
Compared to the 2500 they were still flying machines.We had one at our depot which was quicker to the point where the fleet engineer took an interest in the tacho traces coming back from it.It turned out that it had been supplied from the factory with a 3300 spec motor by mistake.
I think but im not 100% sure that the 2500 was a completely different engined vehicle to the 2800 , my point was that the 95 310 was supposed to be an improvement on the the 2800 , the ones i drove certainly weren`t now the 95 350 was a different kettle of fish
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
I`ve had a few 2800 ATIs and they were pretty gutless
Compared to the 2500 they were still flying machines.We had one at our depot which was quicker to the point where the fleet engineer took an interest in the tacho traces coming back from it.It turned out that it had been supplied from the factory with a 3300 spec motor by mistake.
I think but im not 100% sure that the 2500 was a completely different engined vehicle to the 2800 , my point was that the 95 310 was supposed to be an improvement on the the 2800 , the ones i drove certainly weren`t now the 95 350 was a different kettle of fish
The 2800 was obviously the entry level for anyone who ( rightly ) thought the 2500 was a joke.While as you’ve said in all cases the lesser spec versions weren’t ideal compared to the better ones.IE 3300/3600 95 350.The point being the level of development potential contained in the Leyland 680 design that they were all based on and DAF’s ability ( and budget ) in being able to do that.Everything thing else was just dependent on the level of customer choice.IE its output potential was amazing from a less than 12 litre design.
AFAIK the 2500 was powered by the 8.25 litre DH (R?) engine which had started life as the 8.25 DHU in the 2100. However without the now sadly deleted reference charts from ERF Continental I cannot confirm its origin. What I can remember is that it had been in the 2300 which was the first vehicle to knock Gardner off the fuel perch in CM’s road tests. This engine went on to be fitted in the T45 derivative cabbed 80 series DAFs. It was a reverse pattern to most engines seen in the UK at that time having the fuel pump on the (UK) driver’s side.
cav551:
AFAIK the 2500 was powered by the 8.25 litre DH (R?) engine which had started life as the 8.25 DHU in the 2100. However without the now sadly deleted reference charts from ERF Continental I cannot confirm its origin. What I can remember is that it had been in the 2300 which was the first vehicle to knock Gardner off the fuel perch in CM’s road tests. This engine went on to be fitted in the T45 derivative cabbed 80 series DAFs. It was a reverse pattern to most engines seen in the UK at that time having the fuel pump on the (UK) driver’s side.
Ironically I actually preferred the 2300,especially in later ATI form which I used for a while in drawbar spec with a close coupled trailer,to the Y reg 2500’s we had.Probably because of a better engine and gearing combination.The 2500’s were absolutely gutless torqueless over geared heaps that could run at silly speeds on the flat but went backwards at the first sight of the smallest hill.As for fuel consumption I never drove any 2300 or 2500 that did any better on fuel than any of our 2800’s wether pre ATI or ATI.
Which I think was probably one of the reasons why 2800 ATI’s replaced all of our 2500’s.Although during most of that period I was more often given a Scania 112 and then an MAN both on long term rental.Maybe because I might have been being used as the firm’s fuel consumption test guru after at least matching the 2500’s with the old 2800. 
The same applied in the case of the 85 ( luckily ) all of which in our case being fitted with the larger 2800 type motor.Not the smaller gutless 8.25 which I didn’t even know was an option in it. 
cav551:
AFAIK the 2500 was powered by the 8.25 litre DH (R?) engine which had started life as the 8.25 DHU in the 2100. However without the now sadly deleted reference charts from ERF Continental I cannot confirm its origin. What I can remember is that it had been in the 2300 which was the first vehicle to knock Gardner off the fuel perch in CM’s road tests. This engine went on to be fitted in the T45 derivative cabbed 80 series DAFs. It was a reverse pattern to most engines seen in the UK at that time having the fuel pump on the (UK) driver’s side.
The idiot reinstated the documents, saying he had retrospectively asked for permission to post them. He has since edited that post, removing the documents for a second time. If he puts them up again, ffs someone save them to disc.
The 2100, 2300 and 2500 had the 8.25 litre engine. IIRC, this engine was the first “proper” DAF engine, IE it was not a Leyland derivative, unlike the 6.15 and 11.6 litre DAFs, which were developed from Leyland designs. It is late but, if anyone wants me to check the details, I have a copy of Pat Kennett’s book somewhere…
I am fairly certain that the DAF 80 series used the 11.6 litre engine. In other words, it was Lancashire throughout, apart from a bit of development and a new frock.
Having thought about it for another 50-ish seconds, I reckon the ultimate Leyland would be one of those DAF 80 series, with an Interstate cab dropped onto it, and the last-of-the-line 430bhp 11.6 litre engine in it. How about it, restorers?
What is going on with the deleting of info?
FFS if you’re a bit on the bipolar side do us all a favour and don’t bother posting stuff in the first place, as when the madness gets a grip and you delete posts it ruins the flow of the thread.
Oh and re the 85 with the 8litre engine, it would’ve been a 75.
Would a CF75 of 2002 vintage with the 310 be descended from Leyland engines? Ours sounds nice and has a nice bark/howl, reminding me of rides in Bisons and Constructors. The only annoyance is hearing anyone on the handsfree speaker when it’s running 50mph+.
It appears that the 80 series did not have the 8.25 engine although at that time IIRC there were rigid six wheel chassis with this engine, what I now can’t recall is which cab they had the - ‘Leyland’ or the DAF ‘CF style’ cab.
We ran a couple of the Leyland DAF80 series in the early 90s they were the 330Ati fitted with the 11.6 DAF engine good lorries fitted with 16spd ZF Ecosplit
I know quite a few were fitted with the Eaton twin splitter
cav551:
It appears that the 80 series did not have the 8.25 engine although at that time IIRC there were rigid six wheel chassis with this engine, what I now can’t recall is which cab they had the - ‘Leyland’ or the DAF ‘CF style’ cab.
According to that link, the narrow-cabbed 80 series had a U-flow head, similar to the old 2800, while the wider cab had a new crossflow head under it. The last WS variant of the 1160 was therefore quite a different beast to the old 680.
There is a picture of a narrow-cab 70 series on the internet somewhere. I bet that had a 8.25 litre engine in it. Unfortunately it is on an uninformative site.
The original Leyland 600 can be in some way compared to the superb Alfa Romeo Twin Cam engine of 1954 which AFAIK is still the basis for some Alfa engines today. It is not at all unusual for modified cylinder heads to be mated to what is essentially the same block, even if maybe the material it is made from has changed.
Hey, thanks to all for the info and pictures.
Here two pic’s of the 2600 (Jukebox) Leyland engine the P680 and DP680 with a few differnces as the main point the Bosch fuel pump.
@Robert, thanks for the pic’s too.
@ CF i agree with you that in a time of 200/250hp the better was a ZF12sp as a Fuller 9sp, but the Fuller was ways ahead of reliability, synco or non synco ZF’s.
The ZF 12sp only in synco was the only ZF box i liked, and even hated the push through with the 16 speeds, and that was what we had a time with the Fullers too with Daf 3300/ and ATI’s. The 95 was again 4 over 4.
As I am and Always was a fanatic of Multi speed boxes, my two apples of one’s eye were the RTO13 and SR61/62.
And as the more powered camions came with the best option a12 speed. Think 12 but + 2 craulers AND 2 high craulers which were obstructed were even camouflaged 16 speed boxes.
Here a pic too, which I found in a brochure, with all different designations of Fuller’s.
Eric,
cav551:
The original Leyland 600 can be in some way compared to the superb Alfa Romeo Twin Cam engine of 1954 which AFAIK is still the basis for some Alfa engines today. It is not at all unusual for modified cylinder heads to be mated to what is essentially the same block, even if maybe the material it is made from has changed.
The current 6 cylinder range of Mercedes engines use the same basic model code as the 1969 OM 400 series, IE OM471, 2 and 3. Do they use the same (or similar) block and crankcase, I wonder, as the 6 cylinder versions of that engine series?
[zb]
anorak:cav551:
The original Leyland 600 can be in some way compared to the superb Alfa Romeo Twin Cam engine of 1954 which AFAIK is still the basis for some Alfa engines today. It is not at all unusual for modified cylinder heads to be mated to what is essentially the same block, even if maybe the material it is made from has changed.The current 6 cylinder range of Mercedes engines use the same basic model code as the 1969 OM 400 series, IE OM471, 2 and 3. Do they use the same (or similar) block and crankcase, I wonder, as the 6 cylinder versions of that engine series?
Hey, 400 serie means not that parts can be interchanged. Years ago you had the 407/427/447 engines and only the heads were the same as the V engines.
Eric,
