Bewick:
I realise that this shot is not one of an “Erfkinson” and I’ve read with interest the previous posts about “gearing”,however,this Borderer had a ■■■■■■■ 220 engine,a Fuller RTO 610 box and an Eaton 2 speed drive axle.Never having been a qualified “Techno” all I can say is that this driveline performed superbly albeit with a competent driver at the wheel .In it’s day there was little or nothing that could out perform it on the M/ways as you could change gear at 250 rev intervals so such little steps gave it the ability to sustain a steady constant speed without the wide variation encountered by lesser geared motors.I hope my limited explanation makes sense to those of you far more technical advanced than I. Bewick.
Bewick I’m guessing that you found that combination showed benefits in fuel consumption too ?.
Bewick:
I realise that this shot is not one of an “Erfkinson” and I’ve read with interest the previous posts about “gearing”,however,this Borderer had a ■■■■■■■ 220 engine,a Fuller RTO 610 box and an Eaton 2 speed drive axle.Never having been a qualified “Techno” all I can say is that this driveline performed superbly albeit with a competent driver at the wheel .In it’s day there was little or nothing that could out perform it on the M/ways as you could change gear at 250 rev intervals so such little steps gave it the ability to sustain a steady constant speed without the wide variation encountered by lesser geared motors.I hope my limited explanation makes sense to those of you far more technical advanced than I. Bewick.
Bewick I’m guessing that you found that combination showed benefits in fuel consumption too ?.
Yes you are quite correct “CF”,this motor was the most economical ■■■■■■■ we ran although we did run an older 205 Atky that was a close second and this particular unit had the Fuller 610 and the old Kirkstall BDR axle which for some unknown reason had a higher axle ratio than the standard BDR and this higher gearing gave it nearly 10 mph better speed at the same revs.I guess this higher gearing accounted for the better fuel consumption.Cheers Bewick.
[zb]
anorak:
Regarding Fuller RTO9513 gearboxes, I thought that the “9” at the beginning signified 900lbft, which should have made the 'box adequate for a 140 or a ■■■■■■■ 350.
From memory I think that translates as Roadranger Transmission Overdrive 950 lbs/ft 13 speed ?.Regardless of the codes I don’t think that the 9 speed could handle anything that the 13 speed couldn’t assuming the correct input spec was taken account of in either case.So it just seems like a case of yet again the Brits shooting themselves in the foot when a better option was available which arguably would have made the fuel figures for the ERF v it’s competition on test look even better.
robert1952:
Well said, Anorak: you are a taller man than I thought! I expect Saviem will have a word or two to say about the gear-matching. Maybe they wanted to discourage him from double-declutching. Robert
I have been 5ft9 for longer than I care to remember .
The 4mph disparity in the main road average speeds of the ERF and Scania does tend to undermine Truck magazine’s claim to impartiality. Such a difference could not be ascribed to traffic conditions alone, as the amount of traffic would fluctuate along the route, averaging about the same for both vehicles. Looking at the results table, increasing the Scania’s main road average speed by 4mph would not have damaged its fuel consumption unduly- maybe 0.1 or 0.15mpg worse, judging by its motorway figure, and the higher speed would have given it a superior average speed and productivity number at the end. If the driver of all of the vehicles was Mr. Kennett, maybe his jingoism influenced his judgment, when testing the vehicles? Having said that, the specification table states that the Scania’s top speed was 64mph, but calculating it from the mph/1000rpm figure gives it a top speed of 67mph. Maybe its tachograph was under-reading speed?
hey Anorak, about Scania’s speed it did at max revs 100kph at 2300revs.
It’s easy to calculate with the formule:
2300rev : 60 minutes : top gearing X 3.425 tyre speed (1200*20 or 13r22.5) : 4.71 ratio : 1000 = 100,35kph @ 2300rev.
Cheers Eric,
Don’t overlook the retarding factor, chaps. I earlier made the point that the ERF’s Jake-brake (on the Euro Test) meant that in addition to time saved by rapid upshifts using the clutch-brake, considerable gains could be made downhill at reasonably high speed using the Jake. This alone may account for the ERF / Scania speed discrepency. Whaddya think? Robert
robert1952:
in practice most NGC 420s fitted with NTC 335 engines had 9-speed Fullers because apparently, the 13-speed ‘boxes didn’t match well to 335s because of the high torque-loads, but were fine when matched to 290s. I can find only two examples of NGC 420s fitted with the NTC 335 / 9-speed Fuller combination: Corbishley’s preserved vehicle (KCH 95N), and a French NGC 420 operated by R Collin (1557 PF89). There may of course have been others. Robert
Hey Robert, wasn’t the high torque 13 speed Fuller available RTO 12513 as used in Berliets TR350 instead of the 9513.
But in some Scania’s the RTO9513 gave good service,some put out the Scanny box at the first problems.
Cheers Eric,
If I’m not mistaken, I think the ‘heavy-duty’ Fuller 13s came in a little late for the NGC 420. They had no problems matching them to the later LHD B-series with ■■■■■■■ 350s in. Robert
well as Robert has said the 13 speed just did not have the torque capacity needed…and with the torque output of the Cu335, who needed 13 speed
Is that a coincidence, or what?
On a visit to the Sun Works, I enquired why my favourite gearbox (before the wonderful Twin Splitter!) could not be supplied behind the ■■■■■■■ 335 I was told, “When you’ve got this much power, you’ll not need all those gears”.
Must have been taken from the standard ERF script!
Yep! In addition to which the 9-speed 'box gave you a stick-shift for every gear-change, which you could effect without using the clutch, whereas you did need the clutch to activate the split-shifts on the Fuller 13 and they didn’t always go through reliably, especially if the air was down. Robert
robert1952:
in practice most NGC 420s fitted with NTC 335 engines had 9-speed Fullers because apparently, the 13-speed ‘boxes didn’t match well to 335s because of the high torque-loads, but were fine when matched to 290s. I can find only two examples of NGC 420s fitted with the NTC 335 / 9-speed Fuller combination: Corbishley’s preserved vehicle (KCH 95N), and a French NGC 420 operated by R Collin (1557 PF89). There may of course have been others. Robert
Hey Robert, wasn’t the high torque 13 speed Fuller available RTO 12513 as used in Berliets TR350 instead of the 9513.
But in some Scania’s the RTO9513 gave good service,some put out the Scanny box at the first problems.
Cheers Eric,
If I’m not mistaken, I think the ‘heavy-duty’ Fuller 13s came in a little late for the NGC 420. They had no problems matching them to the later LHD B-series with ■■■■■■■ 350s in. Robert
It’s possible that they might have been confusing the availability limitations of the local UK fuller manufacturing operation with what was actually available in the States.In which case the higher capacity option seems to have been available from day 1 of the 13 speed’s availability which from memory I think was 1971 ?.Which this e bay ad for an original print brochure seems to confirm.
As for using the clutch brake to speed up upshifts that also seems strange being that the usual by the book instruction was that clutch brakes are only meant to be used when putting the box into gear from neutral while stationary.The rest of the time double de clutched upshifts were the by the book method and still way faster than slow heavy shifting synchros.
robert1952:
in practice most NGC 420s fitted with NTC 335 engines had 9-speed Fullers because apparently, the 13-speed ‘boxes didn’t match well to 335s because of the high torque-loads, but were fine when matched to 290s. I can find only two examples of NGC 420s fitted with the NTC 335 / 9-speed Fuller combination: Corbishley’s preserved vehicle (KCH 95N), and a French NGC 420 operated by R Collin (1557 PF89). There may of course have been others. Robert
Hey Robert, wasn’t the high torque 13 speed Fuller available RTO 12513 as used in Berliets TR350 instead of the 9513.
But in some Scania’s the RTO9513 gave good service,some put out the Scanny box at the first problems.
Cheers Eric,
If I’m not mistaken, I think the ‘heavy-duty’ Fuller 13s came in a little late for the NGC 420. They had no problems matching them to the later LHD B-series with ■■■■■■■ 350s in. Robert
It’s possible that they might have been confusing the availability limitations of the local UK fuller manufacturing operation with what was actually available in the States.In which case the higher capacity option seems to have been available from day 1 of the 13 speed’s availability which from memory I think was 1971 ?.Which this e bay ad for an original print brochure seems to confirm.
As for using the clutch brake to speed up upshifts that also seems strange being that the usual by the book instruction was that clutch brakes are only meant to be used when putting the box into gear from neutral while stationary.The rest of the time double de clutched upshifts were the by the book method and still way faster than slow heavy shifting synchros.
You’re right about the advice in the instruction books, but I think that is only to discourage continual unnecessary use which would quickly wear it out. We all used occasionally to use the clutch-brake for quick changes when up-shifting while ascending. On any given journey you might only ever have recourse to this method once or twice if at all, thus no significant wear and tear, I would have thought. Robert
Not everyone seems convinced that the ‘slick upshift’ element is a particularly convincing explanation for the ERF’s superior speed on the '75 Euro Test. So let us then assume that, performance-wise, the Scania and the ERF were on a par (which of course they more or less were). The main variable left in mid-air is the Jake-brake, which alone may have made a significant enough difference to account for the ERF’s fast journey time in the mountain section of the test. How many times have we crawled down steep hills in low gear whilst standing on the exhauster, only to descend the same hills at twice or thrice the speed in another unit fitted with an engine-brake? Robert
gazsa401:
Berefords of Stoke on Trent ran some fitted with 240 Gardners
There were two NGC 420s (7MW cab)in Beresford colours. One of them was a subbie unit (Albert Dale) which ended up with John Symmonds heavy haulage. The other eventually passed to Trans Arabia of Jeddah. Both were fitted with ■■■■■■■ 335 / 9-speed Fuller. Of the 15 or so 5MW-cabbed Beresford units, only one was LHD as far as I know: registered PVT 646R, it had a Rolls Royce 220 and 10-speed Fuller 'box. Hope that’s helpful. Robert
Hi Robert, very interesting thread. Loving the pictures and looking forward to the book.
GEH 513N By the time it arrived at John Simmons had a 13speed.Obviously I don’t know if it was factory fitted for Albert Dale,but they were pretty reliable boxes so may have been ordered with that gearbox.
As for achieving smooth , lightening fast, up changes with 13, 18speed & Eaton twin splitter gearboxes, if one pre-selects the next split, back off the throttle, as quick as you can pull that gear lever out and back in again, back on the throttle and you can be 100% certain the gear will be engaged. All without touching the clutch. Especially good for twin splitters when climbing from a standing start as using the air operated clutch brake feels harsh.
gazsa401:
Berefords of Stoke on Trent ran some fitted with 240 Gardners
There were two NGC 420s (7MW cab)in Beresford colours. One of them was a subbie unit (Albert Dale) which ended up with John Symmonds heavy haulage. The other eventually passed to Trans Arabia of Jeddah. Both were fitted with ■■■■■■■ 335 / 9-speed Fuller. Of the 15 or so 5MW-cabbed Beresford units, only one was LHD as far as I know: registered PVT 646R, it had a Rolls Royce 220 and 10-speed Fuller 'box. Hope that’s helpful. Robert
Hi Robert, very interesting thread. Loving the pictures and looking forward to the book.
GEH 513N By the time it arrived at John Simmons had a 13speed.Obviously I don’t know if it was factory fitted for Albert Dale,but they were pretty reliable boxes so may have been ordered with that gearbox.
As for achieving smooth , lightening fast, up changes with 13, 18speed & Eaton twin splitter gearboxes, if one pre-selects the next split, back off the throttle, as quick as you can pull that gear lever out and back in again, back on the throttle and you can be 100% certain the gear will be engaged. All without touching the clutch. Especially good for twin splitters when climbing from a standing start as using the air operated clutch brake feels harsh.
I didn’t know GEH had a 13-speed, that’s interesting. Thanks for that snippet. As for your description of the ‘bunny-hopping’ technique: yes, I’m very familiar with it and used it with both 13-speed Fullers and in Twin-splitters, where it is especially useful down-shifting on approach to roundabouts when the torque has already been broken. Robert
gazsa401:
Berefords of Stoke on Trent ran some fitted with 240 Gardners
There were two NGC 420s (7MW cab)in Beresford colours. One of them was a subbie unit (Albert Dale) which ended up with John Symmonds heavy haulage. The other eventually passed to Trans Arabia of Jeddah. Both were fitted with ■■■■■■■ 335 / 9-speed Fuller. Of the 15 or so 5MW-cabbed Beresford units, only one was LHD as far as I know: registered PVT 646R, it had a Rolls Royce 220 and 10-speed Fuller 'box. Hope that’s helpful. Robert
Hi Robert, very interesting thread. Loving the pictures and looking forward to the book.
GEH 513N By the time it arrived at John Simmons had a 13speed.Obviously I don’t know if it was factory fitted for Albert Dale,but they were pretty reliable boxes so may have been ordered with that gearbox.
As for achieving smooth , lightening fast, up changes with 13, 18speed & Eaton twin splitter gearboxes, if one pre-selects the next split, back off the throttle, as quick as you can pull that gear lever out and back in again, back on the throttle and you can be 100% certain the gear will be engaged. All without touching the clutch. Especially good for twin splitters when climbing from a standing start as using the air operated clutch brake feels harsh.
I didn’t know GEH had a 13-speed, that’s interesting. Thanks for that snippet. As for your description of the ‘bunny-hopping’ technique: yes, I’m very familiar with it and used it with both 13-speed Fullers and in Twin-splitters, where it is especially useful down-shifting on approach to roundabouts when the torque has already been broken. Robert
Forgot to mention using the Jake for very quick upshifts which seems a popular technique here in Oz. To me it’s a lazier, less smooth action than the one I mentioned earlier. And with the Jake the vehicle goes onto overrun. Ok if you’re driving a tipper but not so good with a precarious load say.
gazsa401:
Berefords of Stoke on Trent ran some fitted with 240 Gardners
There were two NGC 420s (7MW cab)in Beresford colours. One of them was a subbie unit (Albert Dale) which ended up with John Symmonds heavy haulage. The other eventually passed to Trans Arabia of Jeddah. Both were fitted with ■■■■■■■ 335 / 9-speed Fuller. Of the 15 or so 5MW-cabbed Beresford units, only one was LHD as far as I know: registered PVT 646R, it had a Rolls Royce 220 and 10-speed Fuller 'box. Hope that’s helpful. Robert
Hi Robert, very interesting thread. Loving the pictures and looking forward to the book.
GEH 513N By the time it arrived at John Simmons had a 13speed.Obviously I don’t know if it was factory fitted for Albert Dale,but they were pretty reliable boxes so may have been ordered with that gearbox.
As for achieving smooth , lightening fast, up changes with 13, 18speed & Eaton twin splitter gearboxes, if one pre-selects the next split, back off the throttle, as quick as you can pull that gear lever out and back in again, back on the throttle and you can be 100% certain the gear will be engaged. All without touching the clutch. Especially good for twin splitters when climbing from a standing start as using the air operated clutch brake feels harsh.
I didn’t know GEH had a 13-speed, that’s interesting. Thanks for that snippet. As for your description of the ‘bunny-hopping’ technique: yes, I’m very familiar with it and used it with both 13-speed Fullers and in Twin-splitters, where it is especially useful down-shifting on approach to roundabouts when the torque has already been broken. Robert
Forgot to mention using the Jake for very quick upshifts which seems a popular technique here in Oz. To me it’s a lazier, less smooth action than the one I mentioned earlier. And with the Jake the vehicle goes onto overrun. Ok if you’re driving a tipper but not so good with a precarious load say.
But you’ve got me thinking now, Colin, about 13sp / 335 matched NGC 420s. We now have 3 examples. As you say, GEH may or may not have been factory-fitted with one (or had a conversion). I have a sneaky feeling that they may have left the factory with 9-speeds. I say this because Corbishley’s KCH 95N was supplied new with a 13-speed 'box, BUT it still has the original 9-speed diagram plate rivetted below the dashboard; so it may have been converted by CDB in Belgium, who supplied it to Eyckman’s. As for the French example still lurking in the woods, I have an internal picture of it in which a 13-speed gear-knob is clearly visible and the photographer THINKS it has a 335 (not a 290) but isn’t absolutely certain. If anyone else out there can provide me with reliable gearbox info for individual NGC 420s it would strengthen, or at least test, any assertions I make later. The thick plottens! Robert
This lorry was owned by R James(Bob) from Rothley Leicestershire in the early eighties. I think I remember that single axle trailer too.
Now I hope we are talking about the same lorry here! Your photo shows a RHD 5MW-cabbed unit, which of course is not an ERF European, but it’s registration is GEH 511N. I’m talking about the LHD John Symmons / ex-Albert Dale 7MW-cabbed European, registered GEH 513N. Can I just confirm that it is 513N that had the 13-speed box? Cheers mate. Robert
Here’s a pic of GEH 513N. By the way the other Beresford NGC 420 did have a 9-speed 'box because that one went to Trans Arabia where Jerry Cooke drove it. Robert
This lorry was owned by R James(Bob) from Rothley Leicestershire in the early eighties. I think I remember that single axle trailer too.
Now I hope we are talking about the same lorry here! Your photo shows a RHD 5MW-cabbed unit, which of course is not an ERF European, but it’s registration is GEH 511N. I’m talking about the LHD John Symmons / ex-Albert Dale 7MW-cabbed European, registered GEH 513N. Can I just confirm that it is 513N that had the 13-speed box? Cheers mate. Robert
Yes Robert, just a coincidence that Bob James, also of Rothley had a 5mw only 2 digits away from John Simmons 7mw.If I remember correctly( I was only about 14yrs old) Bobs 5mw had a 10 speed fuller. Regards. Colin.
[zb]
anorak:
Regarding Fuller RTO9513 gearboxes, I thought that the “9” at the beginning signified 900lbft, which should have made the 'box adequate for a 140 or a ■■■■■■■ 350.
From memory I think that translates as Roadranger Transmission Overdrive 950 lbs/ft 13 speed ?.Regardless of the codes I don’t think that the 9 speed could handle anything that the 13 speed couldn’t assuming the correct input spec was taken account of in either case.So it just seems like a case of yet again the Brits shooting themselves in the foot when a better option was available which arguably would have made the fuel figures for the ERF v it’s competition on test look even better.
From the test report and the posts on this thread, it seems that the splitter section of the 'box did not come up to the standard of the rest of it. IIRC, you spent some time on a DAF similar to the one in the report. Did you have to use the clutch to make split changes? Did the splitter change gear reliably?
robert1952:
tiptop495:
[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
Well said, Anorak: you are a taller man than I thought! I expect Saviem will have a word or two to say about the gear-matching. Maybe they wanted to discourage him from double-declutching. Robert
I have been 5ft9 for longer than I care to remember .
The 4mph disparity in the main road average speeds of the ERF and Scania does tend to undermine Truck magazine’s claim to impartiality. Such a difference could not be ascribed to traffic conditions alone, as the amount of traffic would fluctuate along the route, averaging about the same for both vehicles. Looking at the results table, increasing the Scania’s main road average speed by 4mph would not have damaged its fuel consumption unduly- maybe 0.1 or 0.15mpg worse, judging by its motorway figure, and the higher speed would have given it a superior average speed and productivity number at the end. If the driver of all of the vehicles was Mr. Kennett, maybe his jingoism influenced his judgment, when testing the vehicles? Having said that, the specification table states that the Scania’s top speed was 64mph, but calculating it from the mph/1000rpm figure gives it a top speed of 67mph. Maybe its tachograph was under-reading speed?
hey Anorak, about Scania’s speed it did at max revs 100kph at 2300revs.
It’s easy to calculate with the formule:
2300rev : 60 minutes : top gearing X 3.425 tyre speed (1200*20 or 13r22.5) : 4.71 ratio : 1000 = 100,35kph @ 2300rev.
Cheers Eric,
Don’t overlook the retarding factor, chaps. I earlier made the point that the ERF’s Jake-brake (on the Euro Test) meant that in addition to time saved by rapid upshifts using the clutch-brake, considerable gains could be made downhill at reasonably high speed using the Jake. This alone may account for the ERF / Scania speed discrepency. Whaddya think? Robert
The test report states that the slightly more powerful Scania was quicker up two of the test hills, but the ERF was faster up the third, and its average speed over all the hills was best. Mr. Kennett mentions that the ERF’s superior gearbox was the reason for this and, as you point out, its engine brake must have helped too. This all makes sense to me, as it does with all the other commenters on this thread. It is the 4mph disparity in the main road average speeds of the two vehicles which I find odd. Although the report says that this section included some climbs which favoured the ERF, such a difference (about 10%) in average speed over the whole distance of that section suggests that, on the level-road parts of that section, the Scania was driven at a lower cruising speed.
Elsewhere in this forum, I posted a link to an article about Scania’s attempt to sell its wares in the United States in the 1980s. They were marked down for their higher unladen weight but, surprisingly in a constant-mesh-dominated market, the synchromesh gearbox was well-received! It just goes to show that it takes all sorts to make a world. On that evidence, there must have been a place for ERF in Europe.
This is one of the most stimulating discussions we have had on here, mainly due to your posting of the Eurotest. The raw data that Mr. Kennett collected was food for more thought than he could have possibly fitted into one issue of the magazine, so our ramblings can only add to it.
ERF-Continental:
Interesting (technical) data coming-up recently…
@Robert, to my knowledge (I don’t have the book with me now) the following ERF NGC (JLG35N) of 1973
is a NGC380, however not possible to x-ray through the cabfront to look which gearbox was put in, nor the
engine…to be continued when I am around my books and archive again.
@Robert, can you (also) confirm that Thibaut at Stree had a NGC420-tractor? I had a telephone-conversation
with Mrs. Thibaut (1989-1990) in which she spoke about a tractor as well, however never been followed up by
and with promissed pictures though.
Have a good weekend!
A-J
I would have thought, with all that Middle-East kit on (breather pipes up the back of the cab plus visor and Kaisor), JLG 35N would have been another NGC 420. A quick way to tell is to look at the the diesel tank, which on a waisted chassis is angled in towards the rear wheel. You can’t do that with your picture. I discussed this issue at length with both Jerry Cooke and Wobbe Reitsma via email and we concluded, as I have already said, that they were all NGC 420s for the reasons I gave.
Below I show a picture that might or might not be Thibaut’s tractive unit, although it’s in their colours. Wobbe Reitsma thought this picture showed a French demonstrator for MABO. We’ll have to see… Bon weekend! Robert
.In it’s day there was little or nothing that could out perform it on the M/ways as you could change gear at 250 rev intervals so such little steps gave it the ability to sustain a steady constant speed without the wide variation encountered by lesser geared motors.I hope my limited explanation makes sense to those of you far more technical advanced than I.
Bewick.
.
