windrush:
This thread is rather like that aching tooth: you know that probing it with your tongue is going to hurt but you still do it, and on here you look in every day hoping that you might see something new/constructive but all you get is the same old thing going round and round. Luckily for me I had no experience of Leylands or their engines in any shape or form, apart from fitting an oil feed pipe to a 500 series in a loading shovel!
Pete.
What make of loading shovel was that then ? Tyneside
Carryfast:
^ Exactly and that was the problem.Unless your definition of ‘required of it’ is to be behind just about every competitor out there and go large with a 12.5 litre anchor to do it.
As for the car division it was actually the profits made by JRT that were keeping the whole tottering mess afloat from front wheel drive BMC junk to 500 and AEC bus engined trucks.The Buffalo being a prime example having actually got the full house of dumb and dumber motors under its cab.
No surprise we had the on message media praising Issigonis’ and the AEC’s efforts and even the ‘ground braking’ design of the 500.They couldn’t make it up.
While no one was bright enough or brave enough to question the obvious flaws contained in both.Let’s blame the workers at JRT and Scammell instead.It’s their fault.
For someone who is noted for writing rubbish that statement is just about your crowning glory. It is in the public domain that the profits from Truck and Bus division were more than swallowed up by the car division, that included Jaguar, Rover and Triumph which were all part of BMH which was taken over by the Leyland Motors Group under pressure from Harold Wilson’s government because it was “protecting” jobs in the car industry. I’m surprised that you, a Jaguar car lover, has not got the official Sir William Lyons biography in pride of place on your book shelves; it goes into some detail about the forced merger of BMH and Leyland, and I re-read that particular chapter last night just to check the facts.
Until Sir William Lyons retired in 1972, and uniquely in the car division of the group, Jaguar reported its annual financial results separately. This was at the insistence of Sir William. These financial results included Guy and Daimler. Until 1972 the Jaguar group was showing an annual profit, typically some 5% of turnover. Guy was marginally profitable, it always struggled for profits throughout its existence, and Daimler was profitable, on the back of an order for 1,100 Fleetline buses it was supplying to London Transport. No figures are quoted for Rover and Triumph.
What is also given prominence in the book for the period of late 1960s to early 1970s is the disruption Jaguar suffered in its supply chain through strikes in various companies it bought-in components from. Also mentioned is a lengthy strike by BRS drivers who delivered components to Jaguar. I don’t recall any details of that strike at all.
Ironically as a Jaguar car lover ( with the exception that I don’t buy the idea that they couldn’t have got as much or more from the XK and V12 by making them both as simpler to maintain pushrod motors ) I also don’t buy the idea that Leyland were a bad thing for Jaguar bearing in mind that it was Leyland Group that put the XJ6 and XJ12 into production without which there wouldn’t have been a Jaguar for Thatcher to flog off.
As opposed to Lyons’ stupid idea of tying the firm to BMC and by association predictably being dragged down by Issigonis’ stupidity in the process before Leyland rescued the resulting mess.
As for JRT it was it’s profitability v BMC which was much of the reason why the group was actually split away from that sinking ship which should have been closed down.I’ve got numerous editions of Motor and Autocar from the day all stating the fact of JRT’s profitability if I can dig them out of the loft.Then it was decided that it would be a good idea to put them all back together again with predictable and obvious results.JRT’s profits being swallowed up by BMC’s losses.Just as happened before to Jaguar when Lyons thought it would be a good idea to do the same.
Against which you’ve provided no evidence to back your statement that JRT was part of the problem.While AEC’s contributions in the form of the V8 and L12/TL12 and the Leyland 500 were all heroic attempts to save the Group.
There were loads of strikes throughout the 1970’s including my employers at the time.All justified unless you want an economy with zero growth because wages aren’t being kept in line with prices.Including the scam whereby Triumph’s workers were forced to accept a fixed rate.Rather than the piecework rates which had, until then, made the firm a paragon of industrial content among its workforce.Then followed by Edwards thinking that it would be a good idea to turn over Rover and Triumph production to fwd badge engineered Hondas.What could possibly go wrong.
As for Jaguar car lover no with hindsight I could have saved a fortune over the years by keeping my old Triumph 2.5 saloon and putting a stroked 4 litre + Rover V8 in it.
Just like the factory could have done.But no Edwards decided to go for the Acclaim and dumber Honda based 820 to follow the dumb SD1 and allow the BMW 5 series to clean up that sector.Just as the truck division was sacrificed to the advantage of the foreign competition.
Carryfast, You are enough to give a penicillin a headache !
I dont normally bother getting involved in these pointless discussions with Carryfast as you will never win as he always has an
answer !
However Graham is correct about JRT. Leylands truck profits were pumped into the Leyland cars to keep them going.
As for your collection of Motor and Auotcar magazines stating that Jaguar were in profit,they obviously dont mention that was
due to the money from the Leyland Truck division.
I will agree about the numerous strikes in the 1970’s though.
windrush:
This thread is rather like that aching tooth: you know that probing it with your tongue is going to hurt but you still do it, and on here you look in every day hoping that you might see something new/constructive but all you get is the same old thing going round and round. Luckily for me I had no experience of Leylands or their engines in any shape or form, apart from fitting an oil feed pipe to a 500 series in a loading shovel!
Pete.
What make of loading shovel was that then ? Tyneside
It was either a Weatherill L84 or L86 I believe, I can’t remember now as it was in the early eighties and based at another quarry in Buxton so only saw it occasionally. It had the fan drive mounted higher up than the truck application with a long copper oil pipe to feed it, I went to Leyland’s parts centre at Leyland for a modified pipe.
Carryfast:
^ Exactly and that was the problem.Unless your definition of ‘required of it’ is to be behind just about every competitor out there and go large with a 12.5 litre anchor to do it.
As for the car division it was actually the profits made by JRT that were keeping the whole tottering mess afloat from front wheel drive BMC junk to 500 and AEC bus engined trucks.The Buffalo being a prime example having actually got the full house of dumb and dumber motors under its cab.
No surprise we had the on message media praising Issigonis’ and the AEC’s efforts and even the ‘ground braking’ design of the 500.They couldn’t make it up.
While no one was bright enough or brave enough to question the obvious flaws contained in both.Let’s blame the workers at JRT and Scammell instead.It’s their fault.
For someone who is noted for writing rubbish that statement is just about your crowning glory. It is in the public domain that the profits from Truck and Bus division were more than swallowed up by the car division, that included Jaguar, Rover and Triumph which were all part of BMH which was taken over by the Leyland Motors Group under pressure from Harold Wilson’s government because it was “protecting” jobs in the car industry. I’m surprised that you, a Jaguar car lover, has not got the official Sir William Lyons biography in pride of place on your book shelves; it goes into some detail about the forced merger of BMH and Leyland, and I re-read that particular chapter last night just to check the facts.
Until Sir William Lyons retired in 1972, and uniquely in the car division of the group, Jaguar reported its annual financial results separately. This was at the insistence of Sir William. These financial results included Guy and Daimler. Until 1972 the Jaguar group was showing an annual profit, typically some 5% of turnover. Guy was marginally profitable, it always struggled for profits throughout its existence, and Daimler was profitable, on the back of an order for 1,100 Fleetline buses it was supplying to London Transport. No figures are quoted for Rover and Triumph.
What is also given prominence in the book for the period of late 1960s to early 1970s is the disruption Jaguar suffered in its supply chain through strikes in various companies it bought-in components from. Also mentioned is a lengthy strike by BRS drivers who delivered components to Jaguar. I don’t recall any details of that strike at all.
Ironically as a Jaguar car lover ( with the exception that I don’t buy the idea that they couldn’t have got as much or more from the XK and V12 by making them both as simpler to maintain pushrod motors ) I also don’t buy the idea that Leyland were a bad thing for Jaguar bearing in mind that it was Leyland Group that put the XJ6 and XJ12 into production without which there wouldn’t have been a Jaguar for Thatcher to flog off.
As opposed to Lyons’ stupid idea of tying the firm to BMC and by association predictably being dragged down by Issigonis’ stupidity in the process before Leyland rescued the resulting mess.
As for JRT it was it’s profitability v BMC which was much of the reason why the group was actually split away from that sinking ship which should have been closed down.I’ve got numerous editions of Motor and Autocar from the day all stating the fact of JRT’s profitability if I can dig them out of the loft.Then it was decided that it would be a good idea to put them all back together again with predictable and obvious results.JRT’s profits being swallowed up by BMC’s losses.Just as happened before to Jaguar when Lyons thought it would be a good idea to do the same.
Against which you’ve provided no evidence to back your statement that JRT was part of the problem.While AEC’s contributions in the form of the V8 and L12/TL12 and the Leyland 500 were all heroic attempts to save the Group.
There were loads of strikes throughout the 1970’s including my employers at the time.All justified unless you want an economy with zero growth because wages aren’t being kept in line with prices.Including the scam whereby Triumph’s workers were forced to accept a fixed rate.Rather than the piecework rates which had, until then, made the firm a paragon of industrial content among its workforce.Then followed by Edwards thinking that it would be a good idea to turn over Rover and Triumph production to fwd badge engineered Hondas.What could possibly go wrong.
As for Jaguar car lover no with hindsight I could have saved a fortune over the years by keeping my old Triumph 2.5 saloon and putting a stroked 4 litre + Rover V8 in it.
Just like the factory could have done.But no Edwards decided to go for the Acclaim and dumber Honda based 820 to follow the dumb SD1 and allow the BMW 5 series to clean up that sector.Just as the truck division was sacrificed to the advantage of the foreign competition.
Carryfast, You are enough to give a penicillin a headache !
I dont normally bother getting involved in these pointless discussions with Carryfast as you will never win as he always has an
answer !
However Graham is correct about JRT. Leylands truck profits were pumped into the Leyland cars to keep them going.
As for your collection of Motor and Auotcar magazines stating that Jaguar were in profit,they obviously dont mention that was
due to the money from the Leyland Truck division.
0
I will agree about the numerous strikes in the 1970’s though.
Graham i did like the line…
6
These two articles from 1986 and 87 are very intresting and confirm what Graham was saying.
Click on pages twice to read.
5
4
3
2
1
Dean, no matter what experience ,what evidence , what knowledge you have if it doesnt fit with CFs way of thinking its wrong irrespective of what proof you have . There were no strikes caused by the shop floor workers , AEC never built an engine that was any good . JRT never made a loss , NMMs involvement with road testing new lorries were biased and corrupt if the results werent in with CFs way of thinking . Grahams years of research into BL AEC and Gardner mean nothing to him .CAV and Anorak know nothing about engineering if it doesnt fit in with CFs thoughts and dont forget that gem sheets dont secure a load which nearly tipped poor Dennis off the edge. He advised Les P an old hand at the art of loading wool where he was going wrong , so there you go he`s an expert on anything and everything. He should have been a woman
DEANB:
As for your collection of Motor and Auotcar magazines stating that Jaguar were in profit,they obviously dont mention that was
due to the money from the Leyland Truck division.
These two articles from 1986 and 87 are very intresting and confirm what Graham was saying.
If they are saying that JRT was only profitable after the ‘profits’ made by the truck division had been taken into account then why wouldn’t the reports I’ve read also have included BMC in that ?.
Why would the general consensus have said rightly that BMC was the loss making basket case with Issigonis being the main clprit with his joke designs.
To the point where they stupidly replaced the muppet with Triumph’s engineering director thereby leaving Triumph a drifting hulk rather than closing down BMC.The rest is history.
What I’m reading in your article is some of main culprits covering their own complicity with bs.
No one with any sense would have put the Triumph Acclaim and Rover SD1, let alone 820, as competitors to the BMW 5 series and lumbered Harry Webster with Issigonis’ problems leaving Triumph rudderless.
Let alone the idea that the AEC V8, Leyland 500 and the L12/TL12 actually contributed anything to Leyland Group other than massive costs and loss of customers.
Unless they were working for the foreign competition.
The same applies to the truck division.
While if Rover and Triumph supposedly weren’t profitable then why did Leyland trucks want them and keep them both as part of Leyland group long before the BMH merger and formation of BLMC.
tyneside:
I would really like to know where CF worked to gain all his experience. He seems to be an expert on everything.
As far as cars go I suppose you could turn up in a brand new Roller and he would ask why you would buy a heap of junk like that!!
Ironically it’s me who’s making the case for the Rolls Eagle’s design over the L12/TL12 just as Scammell did.It’s the AEC fans who are saying that the Rolls is junk.
My job did bring me into a lot of contact with front line Scammell factory workers if that helps and if they thought the L12 and TL12 wasn’t good enough that’s good enough for me.
I honestly don’t know why others continue to reply and try and converse with CF, he’s had people dancing to his tunes for years now, once I see a comment of his appear on a thread I know it will turn into a debacle so I never bother with it from then on. While I won’t make personal comments about him as some have I feel his sole object on here is to wind people up, fall for it if you like. Also notice the original posters of some of these interesting threads don’t come back onto them as the subject matter they were interested in has long been abandoned for futile arguments and ramblings. Franky.
Frankydobo:
I honestly don’t know why others continue to reply and try and converse with CF, he’s had people dancing to his tunes for years now, once I see a comment of his appear on a thread I know it will turn into a debacle so I never bother with it from then on. While I won’t make personal comments about him as some have I feel his sole object on here is to wind people up, fall for it if you like. Also notice the original posters of some of these interesting threads don’t come back onto them as the subject matter they were interested in has long been abandoned for futile arguments and ramblings. Franky.
The rule is stay on topic.Attack the post not the poster.
All I said was that Buffalo had the full house of Leyland Group’s lemons under its cab in the form of the 500 and L12 motors.
The rest has been a tirade of off topic bollox attempting to rewrite history along the lines that the 500 wasn’t so bad after all and a 12.5 litre motor with less specific output than a 180 Gardner was up to the job and it was all the fault of the ‘unprofitable’ JRT car division taking all the cash and its striking workforce.
When the fact that it was one of the only profitable divisions in the whole bleedin group is contained in page 15 and 16 of the Ryder Report.Which is ironically the only bit it actually got right.
All because a load of AEC fan boys as usual want to attack the poster not the post because it was me that dared to say the truth and that truth just happened to include a bus engine based lemon designed by AEC to follow the even worse 500 and Scammell knew it.
Carryfast, unfortunately your countless posts of complete nonsense do not back up those claims of ‘all I did was’
What you did was start slagging off everything about British Leyland trucks, their engines, the cabs etc. Then you brought a bunch of comparisons in, mostly apples to oranges as per usual, then you went into bore/stroke measurements, cylinder pressure, blah, blah, blah.
Everyone is wrong apart from you, that’s it in a nutshell. Every single contributor to this thread will be in absolute agreement with me, except you of course.
newmercman:
Carryfast, unfortunately your countless posts of complete nonsense do not back up those claims of ‘all I did was’
What you did was start slagging off everything about British Leyland trucks, their engines, the cabs etc. Then you brought a bunch of comparisons in, mostly apples to oranges as per usual, then you went into bore/stroke measurements, cylinder pressure, blah, blah, blah.
Everyone is wrong apart from you, that’s it in a nutshell. Every single contributor to this thread will be in absolute agreement with me, except you of course.
Frankydobo:
I honestly don’t know why others continue to reply and try and converse with CF, he’s had people dancing to his tunes for years now, once I see a comment of his appear on a thread I know it will turn into a debacle so I never bother with it from then on. While I won’t make personal comments about him as some have I feel his sole object on here is to wind people up, fall for it if you like. Also notice the original posters of some of these interesting threads don’t come back onto them as the subject matter they were interested in has long been abandoned for futile arguments and ramblings. Franky.
The rule is stay on topic.Attack the post not the poster.
All I said was that Buffalo had the full house of Leyland Group’s lemons under its cab in the form of the 500 and L12 Your motors.
The rest has been a tirade of off topic bollox attempting to rewrite history along the lines that the 500 wasn’t so bad after all and a 12.5 litre motor with less specific output than a 180 Gardner was up to the job and it was all the fault of the ‘unprofitable’ JRT car division taking all the cash and its striking workforce.
When the fact that it was one of the only profitable divisions in the whole bleedin group is contained in page 15 and 16 of the Ryder Report.Which is ironically the only bit it actually got right.
All because a load of AEC fan boys as usual want to attack the poster not the post because it was me that dared to say the truth and that truth just happened to include a bus engine based lemon designed by AEC to follow the even worse 500 and Scammell knew it.
Right then Carryfast, I will ask the question, what practical experience have you had of driving, owning, operating or anything else of Leyland Trucks in any shape or form that leads you to your opinion.
Tyneside
newmercman:
Carryfast, unfortunately your countless posts of complete nonsense do not back up those claims of ‘all I did was’
Nonsense would be not providing any reasons for what I said.If you don’t like it then pre mod it and/or remove the posts.
But that won’t change history in this case.
Yes your posts are always with the forum rules, but that doesn’t mean they’re acceptable. As an example, it is within the rules to drive down a single carriageway road with the national speed limit at 30mph, it is also within the rules that you can speed up to the speed limit every time there’s a passing opportunity and slow back down as soon as it ends, no rules/laws have been broken, but it is extremely annoying/frustrating for the following vehicles.
That’s how it is here, you are that annoying car, the rest of trucknetuk are the cars stuck behind you.
Now imagine you’re a traffic policeman held up in the long line of traffic, what would you do? No law is being broken, but the badly driven car is clearly causing a problem, in the worst case the speeding up and slowing down could cause an accident further back in the traffic, it could lead to other motorists pulling off and parking up until traffic clears or taking an alternative route, both of which are an inconvenience and it could also prevent others from ever attempting that particular journey again. So again what would you do?
I have posted this table before in another thread, but it is relevant to this thread as it shows the maintenance costs of several engines discussed. The survey by the Institute of Transport Engineers covered 9,488 engines of 16 different types in the 30/32 tons gvw sector and all had covered a minimum of 200,000 miles in service.
I will let readers draw their own conclusions. (Click twice on chart to enlarge)
[zb]
anorak:
Acceleration is maximum at T and BDC. Compression occurs between them. Here’s your homework: at what RPM does compression cause the same load in the conn rod as acceleration in an L12? Assume peak cyl pressure= 2x BMEP, and it occurs at 90 deg crank angle.
Don’t get your question…Nor can we even know what those inertial tensile loadings are without a piston and rod assembly weight and piston speed and that’s your pay grade to work out not mine.
Why don’t you do some proper research and find out the piston weight etc? You talk as if such simple information is held in a vault.
If it’s not your job to do the calculations, why are you pretending to know the result of them?
Luckily for me I had no experience of Leylands or their engines in any shape or form, apart from fitting an oil feed pipe to a 500 series in a loading shovel!
