hiya,
What a fantastic and informative read, thank you Mr Valkyrie.
thanks harry, long retired.
Frankydobo:
Two Eight Wheelers here, one single drive the other double for drawbar use but I would think it was mainly for export with the NTK 350 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed box, no mention of the drive axles unfortunately, this was up to 1971. Franky.
0
That would have been a very useful truck with a 350 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed,it looks like it’s got a Leyland heavy duty back end. There weren’t any Big J’s in NZ and I’ve only seen one pic of a BJ4T in Oz,interestingly with a sleeper cab on spider wheels.
Were there many of these built? And where did they go?
gingerfold:
Yes thanks for clearing that up. I remembered that something had happened to a boat load of buses but couldn’t recall the exact details.
At the time the conspiracy theory was that the CIA were involved, at least some of the salvaged buses ended up in a breakers yard in Greenwich (Norman Rd?)later on in the 60’s quite a few Leyland tippers & mixers in that area sported Leyland “Olympian” bus badges bolted to the front grille
While I have no wish to comment on “Valkyrie’s” fine expose’ of all things RR,what I can say,with all honesty,as a former operator of many tractor units is that had I been stupid enough the simple fact was the “cheapest” engine spec unit was always the RR Eagle,in Seddon,Seddon/Atky,ERFand Atkinson,and the saving was substantial but,of course,this price “advantage” was by far offset by the un- reliability/economy problems experienced with the RR Eagle 220.I also realise that “V” appears to be anti ■■■■■■■ when the ■■■■■■■ 180/205 & 220 engines were “head and shoulders” above the RR Eagle.I would repeat what I have already said in an earlier post,if you were a big OIl Co etc who was only interested in the up fron’t price and not interested in whole of life (including seconhand disposal values) operating cost then you specc’d a RR engine period.OK there were a few hauliers that operated the odd Roller engined unit,but they were few and far between,I wonder why ■■? :roll Bewick.
My old man’s place Ouseburn Transport ran about four or six of the RR 220 Seddon 32:4’s, they were an old time Seddon user anyway and I would think bought these because of the cheapest option, not only in the Seddon Diesel marque but in the engine too. Unfortunately I haven’t any info on how they did during the years they operated them as I’d gone off into the army by then and only got my backside in the cab on the odd leave stint. As far as I know my old man never had any bother with the engine on his but he did pack in driving mid Seventies and this motor would have been handed down, I believe they got their money’s worth out of them, I came across two cabs in a scrap yard ten years later after my demob, one being my dads, I nicked the small red Seddon badge off the front and still have it today.
My Nine years in the mob meant I missed the period these and the early ■■■■■■■■ last Gardners etc were on the go, so didn’t get to work on them or know how reliable they were in service, the Swedish raiders were to the fore and the big ■■■■■■■ when I got back onto the spanners, I never actually touched a Gardner engine again let alone a RR. We did have the multi fuel jobs in our military tracked vehicles though and to be honest we changed them quite regularly out in the field. Cheers Franky.
I accept that this post is about Guy Motors but it appears to have been hi-jacked by RR afficiados 
So here is my take on the RR Eagle 220 engine from a Seddon perspective.This shot is of one of James Cropper’s own account motors ( Croppers are the finest paper makers in the Uk so why did they have to run crappy Seddon/RR Eagles I don’t know (I do know really 
) but they did) However,I recall running into Croppers with our first Atkinson Borderer in '71 to deliver a load of woodpulp,and where you tipped was right next door to their fleet workshops.Out comes their Fleet engineer(the late George Sandham RIP) and his fitters to have a look at this Atkinson that a “young local upstart” was running 
Now I recall exactly what George said at the time,“we can’t afford to buy motors like that” and I said,“but you are able to afford to run them” he turned around and walked away !!! “Cheap to buy,dear to run” I rest my case" Cheers Bewick.
Evening all,…what can one say…Valkeyrie, you put loads of work into your posts, and they make very entertaining reading…but please temper your obvious enthusiasm with a little reality.
The monumental ■■■■ ups by the MOD Civil Servants are legion, and just because the MOD specifies something please do not believe that it is the best available…normally it is not. Political decisions are paramount, and not the quality of the product.
Despite personally having the highest regard for the Rolls Royce personnel that I knew, and handling, and owning a fair few Rolls engined vehicles, as Bewick, and Carl Williams, (both men who have experienced the “quality” of a product when their own cash is invested in it), have pointed out, ■■■■■■■ provided a far superior product, and range of engines for automotive use. In this statement, which can be factually corroberated from “loose engine sales” statistics. Certainly in my own personal experience the ■■■■■■■ 10litre, and 14litre were respectively, 20%, and 35% cheaper to operate than the Rolls/Perkins option. And far easier to rebuild.
Although you wish to give names to cab styles of UK manufacturers, not one of my retained Atkinson range brochures, or specification sheets refer to the Mk1, as “panoramic”, only as Mk1. So as I requested when you freely used colloquial names for Foden cabs, please also desist, or refer to the types as"my colloquial name is…".
Please do not take my criticism of your post personally, far from it, I only seek objectivity…but your style is entertaining, and well researched.
Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Evening all,…what can one say…Valkeyrie, you put loads of work into your posts, and they make very entertaining reading…but please temper your obvious enthusiasm with a little reality.The monumental ■■■■ ups by the MOD Civil Servants are legion, and just because the MOD specifies something please do not believe that it is the best available…normally it is not. Political decisions are paramount, and not the quality of the product.
Despite personally having the highest regard for the Rolls Royce personnel that I knew, and handling, and owning a fair few Rolls engined vehicles, as Bewick, and Carl Williams, (both men who have experienced the “quality” of a product when their own cash is invested in it), have pointed out, ■■■■■■■ provided a far superior product, and range of engines for automotive use. In this statement, which can be factually corroberated from “loose engine sales” statistics. Certainly in my own personal experience the ■■■■■■■ 10litre, and 14litre were respectively, 20%, and 35% cheaper to operate than the Rolls/Perkins option. And far easier to rebuild.
Although you wish to give names to cab styles of UK manufacturers, not one of my retained Atkinson range brochures, or specification sheets refer to the Mk1, as “panoramic”, only as Mk1. So as I requested when you freely used colloquial names for Foden cabs, please also desist, or refer to the types as"my colloquial name is…".
Please do not take my criticism of your post personally, far from it, I only seek objectivity…but your style is entertaining, and well researched.
Cheerio for now.
I second “Saviems” spiel.Bewick. 
Very interesting reading,thanks for that mate. I’d always heard that Gardner’s were economical to run,but those figgers are amazing.
I’m surprised to see the Leyland 680 so far down the list,I always thought they were a good reliable engine,perhaps not?
What trouble did they give?
Was the 680 available in the Big J?
The Leyland O.680 was rated originally at 150 bhp and was introduced in 1952 as a larger version of the legendary Leyland O.600 (125 bhp) which came into production towards the end of WW2. Both engine types were excellent and cemented Leyland’s reputation in the 1950s as a world class manufacturer. In the quest for more power towards the end of the 1950s the Leyland ‘Power-Plus’ versions of these engines were introduced. The ‘Power-Plus’ O.600 was tweaked to 150 bhp and the O.680 became 192 bhp (although de-rated versions of each were offered just to complicate matters). At full power these Leyland engines were troublesome and had reliability issues particularly with regard to head gasket failures, cracked cylinder heads, and liner failures. The ‘Power-Plus’ engines had re-designed cylinder heads and other new features compared with the original engines. The ‘Power-Plus’ policy also extended to the medium weight O.370 / O.400 engines and again these had some reliability problems compared to the earlier O.350 / O.375 engines. These problems with engines did harm Leyland’s reputation somewhat and resulted in management deciding that the O.600 / O.680 had reached and surpassed its development potential. The decision was taken to development the 500 series fixed-head engine with disastrous consequences for the company.
I thought this thread was about GUY 
gingerfold:
The Leyland O.680 was rated originally at 150 bhp and was introduced in 1952 as a larger version of the legendary Leyland O.600 (125 bhp) which came into production towards the end of WW2. Both engine types were excellent and cemented Leyland’s reputation in the 1950s as a world class manufacturer. In the quest for more power towards the end of the 1950s the Leyland ‘Power-Plus’ versions of these engines were introduced. The ‘Power-Plus’ O.600 was tweaked to 150 bhp and the O.680 became 192 bhp (although de-rated versions of each were offered just to complicate matters). At full power these Leyland engines were troublesome and had reliability issues particularly with regard to head gasket failures, cracked cylinder heads, and liner failures. The ‘Power-Plus’ engines had re-designed cylinder heads and other new features compared with the original engines. The ‘Power-Plus’ policy also extended to the medium weight O.370 / O.400 engines and again these had some reliability problems compared to the earlier O.350 / O.375 engines. These problems with engines did harm Leyland’s reputation somewhat and resulted in management deciding that the O.600 / O.680 had reached and surpassed its development potential. The decision was taken to development the 500 series fixed-head engine with disastrous consequences for the company.
Hi Gingerfold,
Thank you for thiis concise accurate information. The cost figures supplied confirmed what all vehicle operators knew and understood.
Most of our fleet were rigids and it would be of great interest how engines used in these vehicles compared. i.e.Bedford, Ford, Perkins BMC/Leyland etc. I think again operators choice of vehicles from those years will give a good indication, but it would be nice to see a comparison.
Carl
A nicely restored Guy Big J ■■■■■■■ cattle wagon & drag at Charleville show. There was a lovely crack from the ■■■■■■■■
A nice GUY Big J AV505 tractor unit at the same show
And to complete the Guy Big J family, a Gardner 180…ready for some T-cut…also at Charleville show
Just a quick reply to Valkyrie about why operators went for the “standard” fitment Rolls/Perkins- according to a former employer of mine, “They were cheapest on the forecourt”.
He was continually moaning about the fuel consumption figures of our three Rolls-engine ERFs when compared to his Gardner 240 version.
gingerfold:
Let’s have a look where the RR220 came in the league table.
But as we all know those figures aren’t representative of all round earnings/productivety which is dependent on other factors not just the maintenance bills.Which is why the naturally aspirated Gardner boat anchors were dropped by both the manufacturers and eventually their customers.While Rolls went on to design decent turbocharged products which at least kept them in the game a lot longer.It’s no good having an engine which is cheaper to run if it’s behind on productivety at the end of the day/week/month/year.
Some of the comments concerning VALKYRIE’S accurate view of Rolls’ products in general seem like yet more re writing of history to cover where the real fault was in being the outdated thinking amongst the uk customer base.Which obviously included ‘Transport Engineer’ in it’s thinking,that basing a comparison on obsolete underpowered naturally aspirated Gardners or the 220 Rolls,or that maintenance costs in isolation,were in any way relevant to the overall earnings figures of a product,at least as the sate of the art stood in 1979.
