Saviem:
Power is relative to the time in which it was available, and I never ever felt, “disadvantaged” !! Cheerio for now.
Wise words indeed
I started out in this game somewhat later than you (and others who contributed to this thread) so I totally understand where you’re coming from on that. I do have the experience of driving a 180, but I was quite fortunate that most of my driving was done in lorries with over 250hp. A big power engine was something with more than 350hp, but 275ish hp was more than adequate for any operation, including following in your tyre tracks (or should that be exhaust smoke ) down to Southern Europe, although I did the odd expedition over the top, I must admit to using the tunnels whenever I could
I read posts on the UK forums about drivers moaning that their 400+hp high roof sleeper cab is not up for the job and I shake my head, just as you old codgers do when my generation talk about the 150s and 180s. Now pulling 38tons over mountains with 275hp and running 150s and 180s have a lot in common, you need to keep momentum going, so you learned to read the road, and also read the behaviour of the other lorries, so you could give someone with a heavy load a helping hand by not getting in the way. All these 600hp merchants just want to be on the limiter all day, whether it’s up hill or down dale, they don’t have to think, they just flick the cruise control switch and woe betide anybody who gets in their way
If the good old 6LX series was still around maybe there would still be lorry drivers driving lorries, rather than steering wheel attendants moving freight around
Exactly, Steeering wheel attendants, blue line merchants, not proper “lorry” drivers today I’m afraid.
The modern idea of licence holders v drivers has no connection with the difference between the relatively big power wagons of the 1970’s/early 1980’s v the Gardner ( or 275 hp) powered ones.I think I’d prefer to drive the old DAF 2800 with no speed limiter at 32 t gross than a dumbed down modern 400 + automated computerised speed limited wagon at 40 t and around 10 HP per tonne isn’t exactly going to set the tarmac on fire especially when unlike during the 1970’s and 1980’s you can’t get a good run at a climb to start with.
However the idea of conserving momentum isn’t really going to be a factor on a long continental alpine type climb especially if you’re unlucky enough to be lumbered with a 275 hp wagon let alone an old Brit Gardner powered heap doing it at 38 t gross. In the real world that situation all comes down to sheer grunt and who has the most of it.
However I’m sure that nmm’s comments,about not getting in the way,in those circumstances,would be not to try to overtake a 250 hp powered wagon with a 275 hp ( let alone a Gardner 150 with a 180 ) powered one,when there’s a small convoy,made up of a TM 4400,V8 Scania and a V8 Fiat (maybe not in that order and all driven by Italians don’t forget ),all coming through before the idea of cruise control was ever heard of in a truck.Rather than the three of them all anchoring up and flashing out the 275 on the basis of good old fashioned British 1950’s type ‘lorry driving’.
Wasn’t just the Brits at it though yes scania had the 350hp 140 Volvo the 330 f89 but they were always in the minority compared to the 110 and f88 which had similar power outputs to what Gardner were offering.
Back in them days the Mercedes range wasn’t noted for its sparkling performance either certainly heard them called a German Atkinson on here.
newmercman:
Your post makes my point for me Carryfast, thank you for that
0
Blimey which bit was that.Was it the bit in which I reckon that an old 2800,without a limiter,would be better at 32 t gross than a modern wagon with around 400-450 hp running at 40 t ‘but’ with a speed limiter holding it back to 85-90 kmh .Or was it the bit where I think that even as far back as the early 1980’s a 275 hp powered wagon wouldn’t have been much better at hauling 38 t over the alps than a 180 Gardner would have been and in the event of it needing to overtake something even slower it would have been the driver of the 275 powered one who let the V8 Scania etc driver through first rather than the Scania driver holding back and getting baulked by letting the 275 driver out in front going over the Brenner .
kr79:
Wasn’t just the Brits at it though yes scania had the 350hp 140 Volvo the 330 f89 but they were always in the minority compared to the 110 and f88 which had similar power outputs to what Gardner were offering.
Back in them days the Mercedes range wasn’t noted for its sparkling performance either certainly heard them called a German Atkinson on here.
A German Atki but at least with a sort of sleeper cab but then they spoiled it by putting a heavy slow 16 speed synchro box on it because the Germans couldn’t handle their own ZF constant mesh one.
Which is why the clever people ‘eventually’ started ordering turbocharged ■■■■■■■ motors and 13 speed fullers in SA’s with reasonable sleepers etc instead but by then DAF had got there first with the 2800.
I have just got back from my unexpectedly long holiday (no, I was not in prison). I will post the photos I took, while away, in due course, but have been distracted from everything by this great discussion. I too have a copy of Gingerfold’s book, and agree that it is excellent. If I may make a suggestion, it is that future editions of the book contain a transcript of this thread- the first-hand recollections of the people who worked with the engine would add substantial flesh to the (equally strong) bones of the story.
According to my reading (which is far from complete), the LX series engines enjoyed a considerable, clear advantage in efficiency over all other makes. They had minimum SFC of around 200g/kWh throughout the ‘70s (did the 6LXCT do 192, or was that the LXD?), while every specificion I have seen for other manufacturers’ engines, of the period, quotes around 220g/kWh. If I remember correctly, I think the intercooled Scanias of 1982-3 were the first to match Gardner, in this respect. While it is easy to get more power out of an engine- make it bigger, run it faster, add forced induction or even go to the lengths of doubling the number of firing strokes per revolution(!)- to get more power out of the fuel itself is a really clever achievement.
I guess I’ll get a chance to air my views on why Gardner failed at some point, but the main point is that Hugh Gardner remains one of the heroes of automotive engineering, without a doubt.
[zb]
anorak:
I have just got back from my unexpectedly long holiday (no, I was not in prison). I will post the photos I took, while away, in due course, but have been distracted from everything by this great discussion. I too have a copy of Gingerfold’s book, and agree that it is excellent. If I may make a suggestion, it is that future editions of the book contain a transcript of this thread- the first-hand recollections of the people who worked with the engine would add substantial flesh to the (equally strong) bones of the story.
According to my reading (which is far from complete), the LX series engines enjoyed a considerable, clear advantage in efficiency over all other makes. They had minimum SFC of around 200g/kWh throughout the ‘70s (did the 6LXCT do 192, or was that the LXD?), while every specificion I have seen for other manufacturers’ engines, of the period, quotes around 220g/kWh. If I remember correctly, I think the intercooled Scanias of 1982-3 were the first to match Gardner, in this respect. While it is easy to get more power out of an engine- make it bigger, run it faster, add forced induction or even go to the lengths of doubling the number of firing strokes per revolution(!)- to get more power out of the fuel itself is a really clever achievement.
I guess I’ll get a chance to air my views on why Gardner failed at some point, but the main point is that Hugh Gardner remains one of the heroes of automotive engineering, without a doubt.
The calculation isn’t as simple as just it’s best SFC figure.That’s just a reflection of where the engine’s most economical part of the rev range is.The first priority that the customer is looking for is the specific torque figure (BMEP) and from that specific power then the amount of maximum torque and maximum power at the lowest engine speed possible.You can bet that on a like for like basis there’s probably no way that any Gardner could have matched it’s competitors on all those parameters and then have kept to that type of advantage in the SFC figure even if it could.The fact is for any customer looking for serious amounts of output the Gardner was always somewhere near the bottom of the list which is why it’s been gone for as long as it has.
Carryfast:
The calculation isn’t as simple as just it’s best SFC figure.That’s just a reflection of where the engine’s most economical part of the rev range is.The first priority that the customer is looking for is the specific torque figure (BMEP) and from that specific power then the amount of maximum torque and maximum power at the lowest engine speed possible.You can bet that on a like for like basis there’s probably no way that any Gardner could have matched it’s competitors on all those parameters and then have kept to that type of advantage in the SFC figure even if it could.The fact is for any customer looking for serious amounts of output the Gardner was always somewhere near the bottom of the list which is why it’s been gone for as long as it has.
I accept that, after the late- '70s introduction of “high torque-rise” engines in Europe (Scania 141, then Berliet TR350, then ■■■■■■■ E290, if I remember correctly), Gardner was left behind in terms of BMEP, so their advantages had become equalled, or improved upon, by others. The crux of my opinion is that, before then, during the 1950s, '60s and early '70s, Gardners were competitive in all areas and superior in fuel consumption, weight and durability. The price premium they demanded was earned.
acd1202:
People keep talking about cheap oil being best in a Gardner, I think you mean low grade and without detergents, rather than cheap. The first fill, and Gardner’s recommendation was usually Silkolene Chatsworth straight 30s. This was/is a non-detergent oil, which works at its best at relatively low oil temperatures, but it certainly wasn’t of poor quality or particularly cheap; just well suited to the way a Gardner went about it’s work. Silkolene is after all a recommended oil supplier for Rolls Royce jets, but I don’t think that will be Chatworth 30.
Spot on there “acd1202” I re-call that when Gulf Oil withdrew from the UK market in the late 70’s their rep we dealt with in our area,Bob Fitzgerald,started work for Silkolene Oil and I started buying Lubes from them for a while,I got two grades,one for the Turbo engines and one for the Gardners which was a little bit cheaper,but not much.However,it was always a concern that someone would put the lesser spec oil into the Scanias and Volvos which would cause big trouble!!! so I eventually started buying our Lubes off our Derv suppliers,first Shell then later on BP.You’d be suprised how you could “sharpen” the Derv price up by throwing in 40,000 litres of Lube oil anually !! Cheers Bewick.
Just as an aside Bewick, I saw Bob Fitzgerald only a couple of weeks ago in his Silkolene/Fuchs liveried Focus going down the A59, no doubt en-route home, if memory serves he lives in Clitheroe. He must be getting towards retiring now, but he still seems to be Mr. Silkolene North West.
acd1202:
People keep talking about cheap oil being best in a Gardner, I think you mean low grade and without detergents, rather than cheap. The first fill, and Gardner’s recommendation was usually Silkolene Chatsworth straight 30s. This was/is a non-detergent oil, which works at its best at relatively low oil temperatures, but it certainly wasn’t of poor quality or particularly cheap; just well suited to the way a Gardner went about it’s work. Silkolene is after all a recommended oil supplier for Rolls Royce jets, but I don’t think that will be Chatworth 30.
Spot on there “acd1202” I re-call that when Gulf Oil withdrew from the UK market in the late 70’s their rep we dealt with in our area,Bob Fitzgerald,started work for Silkolene Oil and I started buying Lubes from them for a while,I got two grades,one for the Turbo engines and one for the Gardners which was a little bit cheaper,but not much.However,it was always a concern that someone would put the lesser spec oil into the Scanias and Volvos which would cause big trouble!!! so I eventually started buying our Lubes off our Derv suppliers,first Shell then later on BP.You’d be suprised how you could “sharpen” the Derv price up by throwing in 40,000 litres of Lube oil anually !! Cheers Bewick.
Just as an aside Bewick, I saw Bob Fitzgerald only a couple of weeks ago in his Silkolene/Fuchs liveried Focus going down the A59, no doubt en-route home, if memory serves he lives in Clitheroe. He must be getting towards retiring now, but he still seems to be Mr. Silkolene North West.
Thanks for that bit of gen “acd1202” Bob lived in Bolton when I dealt with him,he is ,of course,a Southerner and not from the North West! I reckon he must be past retiring age by now though.Cheers Bewick.
newmercman:
Your post makes my point for me Carryfast, thank you for that
0
Blimey which bit was that.Was it the bit in which I reckon that an old 2800,without a limiter,would be better at 32 t gross than a modern wagon with around 400-450 hp running at 40 t ‘but’ with a speed limiter holding it back to 85-90 kmh .Or was it the bit where I think that even as far back as the early 1980’s a 275 hp powered wagon wouldn’t have been much better at hauling 38 t over the alps than a 180 Gardner would have been and in the event of it needing to overtake something even slower it would have been the driver of the 275 powered one who let the V8 Scania etc driver through first rather than the Scania driver holding back and getting baulked by letting the 275 driver out in front going over the Brenner .
Carryfast, you are no doubt a knowledgable person, sort of like those mathematical geniuses, you have a very good grasp of the technical side of things, but you have no common sense whatsoever
My own recollections of the Gardner are somewhat jaded, due to the era and the lorries which I drove either side of it, I came off a Scania 111 with all the bells and whistles of the day, the roof rack, big diesel tanks, air horns, sunvisor etc to drive a day cabbed SA 400 with a 180, from that I went into a SA 400 sleeper with an E290, so obviously the Gardner was never going to excite me
However in an earlier era, the Gardner 180 would’ve been the equivalent of the 111 or E290. A few years before that and the 150 was the equivalent of the 141 or F89
The fact that Gardner managed to soldier on into the 80s has probably done their reputation more harm than good, as they never managed to keep up with the pace, but never forget, they were pace setters themselves for many many years, so even though I hated the Gardner powered piece of junk I had to drive, I still have respect for the achievements of the company itself, just as long as I never have to drive one ever again
newmercman:
Your post makes my point for me Carryfast, thank you for that
0
Blimey which bit was that.Was it the bit in which I reckon that an old 2800,without a limiter,would be better at 32 t gross than a modern wagon with around 400-450 hp running at 40 t ‘but’ with a speed limiter holding it back to 85-90 kmh .Or was it the bit where I think that even as far back as the early 1980’s a 275 hp powered wagon wouldn’t have been much better at hauling 38 t over the alps than a 180 Gardner would have been and in the event of it needing to overtake something even slower it would have been the driver of the 275 powered one who let the V8 Scania etc driver through first rather than the Scania driver holding back and getting baulked by letting the 275 driver out in front going over the Brenner .
Carryfast, you are no doubt a knowledgable person, sort of like those mathematical geniuses, you have a very good grasp of the technical side of things, but you have no common sense whatsoever
My own recollections of the Gardner are somewhat jaded, due to the era and the lorries which I drove either side of it, I came off a Scania 111 with all the bells and whistles of the day, the roof rack, big diesel tanks, air horns, sunvisor etc to drive a day cabbed SA 400 with a 180, from that I went into a SA 400 sleeper with an E290, so obviously the Gardner was never going to excite me
However in an earlier era, the Gardner 180 would’ve been the equivalent of the 111 or E290. A few years before that and the 150 was the equivalent of the 141 or F89
The fact that Gardner managed to soldier on into the 80s has probably done their reputation more harm than good, as they never managed to keep up with the pace, but never forget, they were pace setters themselves for many many years, so even though I hated the Gardner powered piece of junk I had to drive, I still have respect for the achievements of the company itself, just as long as I never have to drive one ever again
If you’re right then the first thing that the MOD would have done when these arrived off the ship would have been to bin the Hercules or the Hall Scott and put in a Gardner.
I know this will have been explained somewhere on this thread but i`m very limited ,in simple terms how did the low revving engines come about and how did they achieve higher power outputs from engines running slower.The first ones i can remember were the big cam ■■■■■■■■■
ramone:
I know this will have been explained somewhere on this thread but i`m very limited ,in simple terms how did the low revving engines come about and how did they achieve higher power outputs from engines running slower.The first ones i can remember were the big cam ■■■■■■■■■
It’s all about torque.There’s two types of power which is just a calculation of torque multiplied by engine speed.There’s the type that’s obtained by taking zb all torque up to higher engine speeds which will give the figure of power on paper but won’t be the same thing as taking large amounts of torque up to lower engine speeds to get the figure.Basically high specific torque figures are obtained by getting the bore/stroke compromise right and then having an engine which will accept large amounts of forced induction without grenading itself.None of which was built into the Gardner at the design stage unlike other engines in which it was but just by accident not by design.
ramone:
I know this will have been explained somewhere on this thread but i`m very limited ,in simple terms how did the low revving engines come about and how did they achieve higher power outputs from engines running slower.The first ones i can remember were the big cam ■■■■■■■■■
What a super question, for which I will provide an inadquate answer:
The first low-speed, high torque turbocharged diesel was the Mack Maxidyne of 1967- 237bhp at 1800rpm and 900lbft of torque (numbers remembered vaguely). It came about, not by customer request or market forces, but by the genius of the engineers who created it (I forget their names, shamefully, but the internet will contain more than I know about anything, if you want to find out). They worked out how to make turbochargers puff harder at low engine speeds, and did other things with the injection etc. to make use of that, to make the engine that preceded every modern diesel by ten years. For that, I think they rank alongside Hugh Gardner as brilliant engineers.
Imagine, what would have happened, if they and Gardner had collaborated? I suspect that, if Hugh had seen the work of his American counterparts, while they were doing it around 1965, his hatred of turbocharging would have been cured in an instant.
ramone:
I know this will have been explained somewhere on this thread but i`m very limited ,in simple terms how did the low revving engines come about and how did they achieve higher power outputs from engines running slower.The first ones i can remember were the big cam ■■■■■■■■■
What a super question, for which I will provide an inadquate answer:
The first low-speed, high torque turbocharged diesel was the Mack Maxidyne of 1967- 237bhp at 1800rpm and 900lbft of torque (numbers remembered vaguely). It came about, not by customer request or market forces, but by the genius of the engineers who created it (I forget their names, shamefully, but the internet will contain more than I know about anything, if you want to find out). They worked out how to make turbochargers puff harder at low engine speeds, and did other things with the injection etc. to make use of that, to make the engine that preceded every modern diesel by ten years. For that, I think they rank alongside Hugh Gardner as brilliant engineers.
Imagine, what would have happened, if they and Gardner had collaborated? I suspect that, if Hugh had seen the work of his American counterparts, while they were doing it around 1965, his hatred of turbocharging would have been cured in an instant.
Thanks for that ,its a little clearer now ,and it stands to reason an engine running at 1400 rpm or even less these days (i had a Scania that was running at 1100 rpm at 56 mph) would last longer than 1 that was running at 2300 rpm + , so it proves all along that Carryfast was right about the Americans … shame he picked the wrong engine though
ramone:
I know this will have been explained somewhere on this thread but i`m very limited ,in simple terms how did the low revving engines come about and how did they achieve higher power outputs from engines running slower.The first ones i can remember were the big cam ■■■■■■■■■
What a super question, for which I will provide an inadquate answer:
The first low-speed, high torque turbocharged diesel was the Mack Maxidyne of 1967- 237bhp at 1800rpm and 900lbft of torque (numbers remembered vaguely). It came about, not by customer request or market forces, but by the genius of the engineers who created it (I forget their names, shamefully, but the internet will contain more than I know about anything, if you want to find out). They worked out how to make turbochargers puff harder at low engine speeds, and did other things with the injection etc. to make use of that, to make the engine that preceded every modern diesel by ten years. For that, I think they rank alongside Hugh Gardner as brilliant engineers.
Imagine, what would have happened, if they and Gardner had collaborated? I suspect that, if Hugh had seen the work of his American counterparts, while they were doing it around 1965, his hatred of turbocharging would have been cured in an instant.
Thanks for that ,its a little clearer now ,and it stands to reason an engine running at 1400 rpm or even less these days (i had a Scania that was running at 1100 rpm at 56 mph) would last longer than 1 that was running at 2300 rpm + , so it proves all along that Carryfast was right about the Americans … shame he picked the wrong engine though
On the subject of the Maxidyne and on a like with like comparison in the day the 568 cubic inch 8V71T put out 963 lbs/ft of torque at the same 1,200 rpm as the 672 cubic inch Maxidyne put out it’s maximum of 906 lbs/ft.The difference was that the Detroit actually had a better torque curve because it wasn’t finished there it then put out it’s maximium of 968 lbs/ft at 1,400 rpm and then maintained more of it higher up the rev range to 2,100 rpm to make a max of 362 hp compared to the Maxidyne’s 273 hp.As I said specific power and torque figures that ■■■■■■■■■■■ alone Mack,fans could only dream about.
Then the 92 series came along in which case you wouldn’t need to run a TM 4400 anywhere near 2,000 rpm to do 65-70 mph let alone 56 because just like the Scania V8 of today,which still needs 1,900 rpm to make it’s max power figure,you’d have been running closer to 100 mph than 50 at that engine speed.It’s just that the limiter these days won’t allow the thing to get anywhere near max power rpm in top gear in just the same way that the max power figure isn’t relevant in the real world because no one,with any sense,runs an engine up to that figure on a regular,continuous,basis anyway.It’s just a guide to the type of useable/useful power and torque levels that an engine has below that figure.
Carryfast:
On the subject of the Maxidyne and on a like with like comparison in the day the 568 cubic inch 8V71T put out 963 lbs/ft of torque at the same 1,200 rpm as the 672 cubic inch Maxidyne put out it’s maximum of 906 lbs/ft.The difference was that the Detroit actually had a better torque curve because it wasn’t finished there it then put out it’s maximium of 968 lbs/ft at 1,400 rpm and then maintained more of it higher up the rev range to 2,100 rpm to make a max of 362 hp compared to the Maxidyne’s 273 hp.As I said specific power and torque figures that ■■■■■■■■■■■ alone Mack,fans could only dream about.:
CF, do you have copies of the torque curves for these (or any of the engines) we have discussed? If you could post them, it would make things much clearer.
In the absence of the graphs, If I remember correctly, the Maxidyne developed almost maximum torque all the way down to 1000rpm, and power was deliberately tapered off at higher revs, to encourage the driver to use lower engine speeds, where SFC and durability was superior. In any case, 2 strokes invariably have inferior SFC at all loads and speeds, mainly due to losses in the supercharger. The Maxidyne and its later European imitators eventually prevailed in the market for these reasons. The advantage of the Detroit, typical of all 2 strokes, was in its specific power output- IE hp/litre (as you say). This made it, for a given power output, smaller and lighter. The other advantage of its lighter weight, often ignored, was cost- less material used. Over the life of the engine, this would offset, to some extent, the inferior fuel consumption. Top marks to Detroit Diesel for designing the only big-selling 2 stroke lorry engine- they rank alongside the other two makers mentioned in this thread, in my opinion.
Carryfast:
On the subject of the Maxidyne and on a like with like comparison in the day the 568 cubic inch 8V71T put out 963 lbs/ft of torque at the same 1,200 rpm as the 672 cubic inch Maxidyne put out it’s maximum of 906 lbs/ft.The difference was that the Detroit actually had a better torque curve because it wasn’t finished there it then put out it’s maximium of 968 lbs/ft at 1,400 rpm and then maintained more of it higher up the rev range to 2,100 rpm to make a max of 362 hp compared to the Maxidyne’s 273 hp.As I said specific power and torque figures that ■■■■■■■■■■■ alone Mack,fans could only dream about.:
CF, do you have copies of the torque curves for these (or any of the engines) we have discussed? If you could post them, it would make things much clearer.
In the absence of the graphs, If I remember correctly, the Maxidyne developed almost maximum torque all the way down to 1000rpm, and power was deliberately tapered off at higher revs, to encourage the driver to use lower engine speeds, where SFC and durability was superior. In any case, 2 strokes invariably have inferior SFC at all loads and speeds, mainly due to losses in the supercharger. The Maxidyne and its later European imitators eventually prevailed in the market for these reasons. The advantage of the Detroit, typical of all 2 strokes, was in its specific power output- IE hp/litre (as you say). This made it, for a given power output, smaller and lighter. The other advantage of its lighter weight, often ignored, was cost- less material used. Over the life of the engine, this would offset, to some extent, the inferior fuel consumption. Top marks to Detroit Diesel for designing the only big-selling 2 stroke lorry engine- they rank alongside the other two makers mentioned in this thread, in my opinion.
There’s often a lot of misunderstanding by those who aren’t used to the things about just how much potential was/is contained in that old two stroke design and just how flat a Detroit torque curve is especially when we’re talking about the turbocharged versions not the non turbo ones.
The example which I gave was just with the common fit N70 injectors and a single turbo.So in relatively soft spec compared to what could/can be done with them.In most cases it wasn’t any worries about it’s ability to be able to stand up to putting out such levels of specific power and torque and in marine form the sky was/is often the limit .
One of the advantages of the two stroke idea v four is that you don’t need to apply as much boost level to get the same effort because it’s shared across two power strokes not one and to get such specific torque out of a four stroke you’d need to put the componentry under more boost and therefore a lot more stress to get the same effort out of half as many power strokes.Which is why the ■■■■■■■ 903 can’t match the 8V71.
As for the future the fact is it’s still the idea of uniflow two stroke diesels that hold the efficiency records in big low speed marine engines not four stroke and it’s really just a case of the levels of electronic fuelling control and forced induction technology which can be applied which would govern the efficiency potential available in the smaller automotive types.
I think you can extrapolate from that where the torque curve still is at 1,000 rpm although that looks more like a military spec output not a commercial truck one but that’s the type of outputs and potential that Detroit’s reputation was built on through the 1960’s and 1970’s regardless.
The graph shows a minimum full load SFC of 0.36 lb/bhp/hr between about 1700 and 2100RPM. The Gardner 6LYT had a min SFC of 0.32 lb/bhp/hr (thanks Mr. Edge), from memory this was at around 1400RPM, and the Gardner’s curve was quite “flat”. At lower loads, the Detroit would be further disadvantaged, as scavenging losses become a greater proportion of the total.
) down to Southern Europe, although I did the odd expedition over the top, I must admit to using the tunnels whenever I could
In the real world that situation all comes down to sheer grunt and who has the most of it. 
),all coming through before the idea of cruise control was ever heard of in a truck.Rather than the three of them all anchoring up and flashing out the 275 on the basis of good old fashioned British 1950’s type ‘lorry driving’. 
.Or was it the bit where I think that even as far back as the early 1980’s a 275 hp powered wagon wouldn’t have been much better at hauling 38 t over the alps than a 180 Gardner would have been and in the event of it needing to overtake something even slower 