[zb]
anorak:
The first Scania turbo engine in a production lorry chassis was the DS10 in 1961 (or was it 1960? My memory is shot). Very few non-turbo 11 litre Scanias were built. The DS11 was the standard engine; I have never heard of any L76s being fitted with a D11.
It would be interesting to hear the opinions of those who worked with the first DS10s, when that engine was a genuine alternative to the D10. Did the turbo version take over straight away, or was there some reluctance in the market to take up the new technology? Did the DS10 suffer any reliability problems, compared to its naturally-aspirated sister?
Those D10/DN10 and DS10 was assembled under permission of LEYLAND/AEC?
I read somewhere that SCANIA and VOLVO 10 liters engines was a were in fact AEC 9.6 engines with minor changes and you even
could buy engine parts for VOLVO and SCANIA at LEYLAND dealers.
[zb]
anorak:
The first Scania turbo engine in a production lorry chassis was the DS10 in 1961 (or was it 1960? My memory is shot). Very few non-turbo 11 litre Scanias were built. The DS11 was the standard engine; I have never heard of any L76s being fitted with a D11.
It would be interesting to hear the opinions of those who worked with the first DS10s, when that engine was a genuine alternative to the D10. Did the turbo version take over straight away, or was there some reluctance in the market to take up the new technology? Did the DS10 suffer any reliability problems, compared to its naturally-aspirated sister?
Those D10/DN10 and DS10 was assembled under permission of LEYLAND/AEC?
I read somewhere that SCANIA and VOLVO 10 liters engines was a were in fact AEC 9.6 engines with minor changes and you even
could buy engine parts for VOLVO and SCANIA at LEYLAND dealers.
Is this true?
Hey Adzio,
No one of the engines had to see something with each other, compleet different, only Daf developed it’s 1160 engine on the 0680 of leyland.
On one bolt could be used from a Scanny to a Volvo or otherwise.
The only thing I know is that as Scania wanted to make direct injection engine, they went to Leyland to learn how to make a good Di Inj, and think that there was a licence with Leyland about the injection chamber design in the piston.
Volvo was a bit later and came with a compleet own design. The only thing they did in Sweden was using Inch UNF and even Volvo still till today is using it in Inch UNF tread bolts and nuts in there engine.
Have a look in internet (google) and you will see that the engines are compleet different built, no injectors under the valve covers, no fuelpump behind the airpresser and so on.
I half recall seeing in Commercial Motor that the LB110 had 275bhp, at some stage of its life! I just put it down to that figure being gross rather than DIN. Maybe GB market 110s went from 256 BSAu141 to 275 DIN at some stage? The first LB111 in GB had 276bhp to BS141Au, which works out at about 280bhp DIN:
[zb]
anorak:
Superb detail in this thread- thanks Eric.
I half recall seeing in Commercial Motor that the LB110 had 275bhp, at some stage of its life! I just put it down to that figure being gross rather than DIN. Maybe GB market 110s went from 256 BSAu141 to 275 DIN at some stage? The first LB111 in GB had 276bhp to BS141Au, which works out at about 280bhp DIN:
0
Notice how the axle is still only 4.71:1, even for GB, with its higher speed limits and, at the time, less congested motorways.
At 4.71:1 it’s exactly the same as the ERF ‘European’ you’ll notice Robert
I understand the 8, 11 and 14 litre engines making up part of the designation but was the 92 / 93 a new 9 litre engine and what was the numbering system with the 86?
[zb]
anorak:
Superb detail in this thread- thanks Eric.
I half recall seeing in Commercial Motor that the LB110 had 275bhp, at some stage of its life! I just put it down to that figure being gross rather than DIN. Maybe GB market 110s went from 256 BSAu141 to 275 DIN at some stage? The first LB111 in GB had 276bhp to BS141Au, which works out at about 280bhp DIN:
0
Notice how the axle is still only 4.71:1, even for GB, with its higher speed limits and, at the time, less congested motorways.
Hey Anorak,
Nice figure, and you see again on other engine as here, this time an DS11 LB09. Yes the Sweeds had Always slow driveaxles, but Volvo got the 16 box overdrive from '69 on, as at Scnia we had to wait till '77 to get a faster one (4.13) And the 141 (3.88) in '76.
[zb]
anorak:
Superb detail in this thread- thanks Eric.
I half recall seeing in Commercial Motor that the LB110 had 275bhp, at some stage of its life! I just put it down to that figure being gross rather than DIN. Maybe GB market 110s went from 256 BSAu141 to 275 DIN at some stage? The first LB111 in GB had 276bhp to BS141Au, which works out at about 280bhp DIN:
0
Notice how the axle is still only 4.71:1, even for GB, with its higher speed limits and, at the time, less congested motorways.
At 4.71:1 it’s exactly the same as the ERF ‘European’ you’ll notice Robert
Wheel Nut:
I understand the 8, 11 and 14 litre engines making up part of the designation but was the 92 / 93 a new 9 litre engine and what was the numbering system with the 86?
Hey,
The 92 was a compleet new engine with 245 and 275Hp, good engines but not for heavy work.
The 86 was the sucessor of the 85, and the difference with the 80/81 was only the bigger gross weight, even they were here possible as a 19 ton rigid and a tractive unit for 38/40 tons. But with this weight the engines went as snow for the sun. But Volvo’s F86 was to get with the same high weight but the engine did well for the weight, even daily with 38/40 tons.
The same as you had the 145 and 146 which has a stronger frame but only to get as 6x4 an bonneted cab.
tiptop495:
Here the 1967 LB76 Super engine DS11 04 with 275hp din, this brochure is in English text, but don’t know if that engine was for England or it was for the continent, but looks like it was for the UK too as the given powers already are in SMMT.
As it was that way, the 76 had more power as the engine for the 110 in the UK ■■? but looks like.
Eric,
Looking through this again, it seems that the European and British versions were the same- the difference was in the test standards. As far as I am aware, BS141Au is practically the same as DIN, but is/was usually quoted in Imperial hp, which gives a 1.4% lower figure. I do not know how SMMT159 differs from BS141Au. It seems, from that spec. sheet at least, to be considerably different, but the tests could have been conducted on two engines, one of them a “better” example. I always thought the same about the conflicting figures for the DS14- 350DIN, 335 BS141Au (or was it SMMT159?).
Wheel Nut:
I understand the 8, 11 and 14 litre engines making up part of the designation but was the 92 / 93 a new 9 litre engine and what was the numbering system with the 86?
Hey,
The 92 was a compleet new engine with 245 and 275Hp, good engines but not for heavy work.
The 86 was the sucessor of the 85, and the difference with the 80/81 was only the bigger gross weight, even they were here possible as a 19 ton rigid and a tractive unit for 38/40 tons. But with this weight the engines went as snow for the sun. But Volvo’s F86 was to get with the same high weight but the engine did well for the weight, even daily with 38/40 tons.
The same as you had the 145 and 146 which has a stronger frame but only to get as 6x4 an bonneted cab.
Eric,
That makes sense! The lorry I refer to was a three axle skip loader. Scania 86 with a straight five speed gearbox I think, in the UK we could run at 24 tonne at the time.
Robert