newmercman:
But we aren’t comparing it’s reliability to the ■■■■■■■■ it was said to be far more reliable than the TL12, so the compression ratio of the ■■■■■■■ is irrelevant.
Reliability of the TL12 was never an issue, I think that you have mis-understood the previous post. Many seasoned Leyland operators reckon that the TL12 was the best and most reliable Leyland badged engine since the O.600. Pat Kennet also thought the same about it. The L12 also was reliable.
Rather than use the TL11 at 260bhp in the Cruiser wouldn’t it have been a better option to put a downrated TL12 there instead , i know this is a Buffalo thread but just like the later Marathons the Buffalo i suspect would have been a test bed for the T45 range. I did notice your dig with the Leyland badged engine comment , very discreet
gingerfold:
Reliability of the TL12 was never an issue, I think that you have mis-understood the previous post. Many seasoned Leyland operators reckon that the TL12 was the best and most reliable Leyland badged engine since the O.600. Pat Kennet also thought the same about it. The L12 also was reliable.
Either way it was obviously at the expense of specific output v Rolls/■■■■■■■ as observed by Ramone.
The 500 obviously being compromised regarding it’s capacity and therefore predictably over stressed v 680 or L12/TL12 regardless.
I don’t think there was an actual bad lorry in 2011, sure some were better, but they were all pretty good.
The really bad lorries were around in the 70s and 80s because the gulf between good and bad was so large. Take an early F88 against a, well anything British really and they’re chalk and cheese, every part of the Volvo is far superior to it’s British alternative.
Nothing springs out to me as being bad in 2011, only difference I can think of was the cost between fleet trucks compared to the top of the range vehicles.
newmercman:
But we aren’t comparing it’s reliability to the ■■■■■■■■ it was said to be far more reliable than the TL12, so the compression ratio of the ■■■■■■■ is irrelevant.
Reliability of the TL12 was never an issue, I think that you have mis-understood the previous post. Many seasoned Leyland operators reckon that the TL12 was the best and most reliable Leyland badged engine since the O.600. Pat Kennet also thought the same about it. The L12 also was reliable.
Rather than use the TL11 at 260bhp in the Cruiser wouldn’t it have been a better option to put a downrated TL12 there instead , i know this is a Buffalo thread but just like the later Marathons the Buffalo i suspect would have been a test bed for the T45 range. I did notice your dig with the Leyland badged engine comment , very discreet
Just as there are lies, damned lies, and statistics then there was different power output assessment data. The TL12 was assessed at 273 bhp at the BS:1971:AU (IMPERIAL) standard. Using that same standard the TL11 maxed-out at 236 bhp. However, if you use the METRIC standard, which had become the default measurement in the UK when the Leyland Cruiser was introduced, then the TL11 engine had miraculously gained another 24 bhp. And comparing like-with-like the TL12 was producing 298 bhp. Using the Metric formula puts an extra 9% on the Imperial measurement.
Re the Leyland badging… yes, strange how the troublesome AEC V8 was an AEC engine, yet the successful TL12 was a Leyland engine. The same engineering department and team at AEC designed both engines.
gingerfold:
Just as there are lies, damned lies, and statistics then there was different power output assessment data. The TL12 was assessed at 273 bhp at the BS:1971:AU (IMPERIAL) standard. Using that same standard the TL11 maxed-out at 236 bhp. However, if you use the METRIC standard, which had become the default measurement in the UK when the Leyland Cruiser was introduced, then the TL11 engine had miraculously gained another 24 bhp. And comparing like-with-like the TL12 was producing 298 bhp. Using the Metric formula puts an extra 9% on the Imperial measurement.
Realistically just go by the formula torque in lbft x rpm etc either to SAE or DIN no need for a power figure just go by the torque curve.
Don’t think there is any ‘production’ certified engine torque graph on that basis for the TL12 that would show 298 hp at 2,200 rpm ?.
It’s obvious that the L12 and TL12 were going to have to compensate for having less leverage at the crank by pushing more force through the con rod.Whether v the Rolls or ■■■■■■■ or Volvo TD120, or even as DAF proved the 680.
It’s equally obvious that, like the V8, both Leyland and AEC couldn’t make those figures add up for the L12/TL12 without it going bang in a big way the rest is history.
Ironically it was Ramone that pointed it out in the case of the L12.
203 HP from a virtually 12.5 litre motor wasn’t going to cut it as a starting point.
^^^^^^^
It isn’t quite as simple as either torque or horse power. Its a combination of both characteristics and correct gearing that determines how good or otherwise a truck performs. Even today modern engines with very high torque figures don’t seem to pull very well in certain situations.
dave docwra:
Nothing springs out to me as being bad in 2011, only difference I can think of was the cost between fleet trucks compared to the top of the range vehicles.
dave docwra:
Nothing springs out to me as being bad in 2011, only difference I can think of was the cost between fleet trucks compared to the top of the range vehicles.
Any Mercedes esp craptros
Okay, what was so bad about them, there was quite a few of them used as a fleet trucks and they done the job at a reasonable cost.
gingerfold:
^^^^^^^
It isn’t quite as simple as either torque or horse power. Its a combination of both characteristics and correct gearing that determines how good or otherwise a truck performs. Even today modern engines with very high torque figures don’t seem to pull very well in certain situations.
Horsepower is simply torque x engine speed.
The engine speed is a given at any point on the graph.
So it’s all about torque and the L12/TL12 came up short in that regard v Rolls and ■■■■■■■ and TD120.
That torque deficit being as close as makes no difference to reflecting its leverage at the crank deficit.
Agreed wrong gearing can cancel out a lot of any advantage at the flywheel.
But there was no way that the L12/TL12 was ever going to match the Eagle/■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in terms of specific output, at the flywheel, at equivalent rpm.
Or even the smaller capacity 680 as DAF proved.
newmercman:
I don’t think there was an actual bad lorry in 2011, sure some were better, but they were all pretty good.
The really bad lorries were around in the 70s and 80s because the gulf between good and bad was so large. Take an early F88 against a, well anything British really and they’re chalk and cheese, every part of the Volvo is far superior to it’s British alternative.
Taking Seddon Atkinson as a case, once the 400 came into its own late 70’s and ■■■■■■■ had the 290 sorted that was an excellent vehicle, itself improved when 401 came on stream around 1983 when the steering and handling were brought up to scratch as well as the cab layout.
As a working lorry i’d always choose a ■■■■■■■ engined Sed Ack (or properly specced ERF) over the equivalent Volvo F10/12 of the 80s, the one aspect neither of the two main Swedish makers could ever compete with the Brit makers was gearboxes, Volvo and Scania synchro boxes have never had the slick rapid easy shifts that Fullers provided, the difference made more obvious still when the brilliant Eaton Twin Splitter came about, no gearbox offered the constant acceleration of one of those once you’d got the hang of it, unbreakable too.
Agreed in the days of the 88, it was streets ahead of what the Brit makers offered at the time (remember with horror the utterly hopeless for a driver Gardner 180, almost always without any power steering too, the stuff of nightmares) and it gave them a well deserved kick up the backside when they lost sales to Volvo and Scania with the 110, but i believe the 80’s fight back by the UK makers provided superb vehicles capable of seriously hard work over many years.
Juddian:
Agreed in the days of the 88, it was streets ahead of what the Brit makers offered at the time (remember with horror the utterly hopeless for a driver Gardner 180, almost always without any power steering too, the stuff of nightmares) and it gave them a well deserved kick up the backside when they lost sales to Volvo and Scania with the 110, but i believe the 80’s fight back by the UK makers provided superb vehicles capable of seriously hard work over many years.
By the standards of the 1960’s the F88 wasn’t half bad.But mid 1970’s v Bedford TM and SA 400 and Fuller being the default Brit choice it was toast and Volvo knew it.
The F10/12 only being at best a match still with inferior transmissions.
I’m sure nmm can’t really believe all the Brit bashing even himself.
The ones who needed the kick up the backside were the Brit operators still demanding day cabbed Atkis and 180 Gardners in the mid 1970’s.
SA 400 with 8LXB the jury is still out but my guess still way better than an F88.
dave docwra:
Nothing springs out to me as being bad in 2011, only difference I can think of was the cost between fleet trucks compared to the top of the range vehicles.
Any Mercedes esp craptros
Okay, what was so bad about them, there was quite a few of them used as a fleet trucks and they done the job at a reasonable cost.
Horrible to drive almost to the point of breaking your back the ride is horrendous seating posistion ridiculously high I could go on, from an operating view ask gingerfold he could flll you in with the gory details or read the thread about them
Ahh but the question was about bad lorries and the F88 comment was as a comparison and also, don’t forget, I said an early F88 against the competition of the day, so there were no decent British alternatives. We’re talking Atkinson Mk2, ERF LV, Guy Big J with a 205 ■■■■■■■ or 6LXB Gardner, AEC Mandator with an AV760, Foden S36 with the two stroke or Gardner, Leyland Beaver with a 690. That was the point of the comparison.
In 1976 these were still available in slightly evolved versions, the Volvo was a 290, the Atki a Borderer, the ERF an A series, the Guy had a different grille, the Foden had dustbin lid sized headlights, the Mandator was unchanged and the Beaver went backwards mechanically to become the Buffalo (see on topic lol) the 205 ■■■■■■■ was now a 220 or if you were really lucky a 250 and the Gardner reached the dizzying heights of 201hp with the 6LXC and the Foden two stroke was history.
Fast forward to the mid 80s and yes, the Brits all had a decent alternative to the Europeans, but the old crap was still available, a day cab 401 with a 6LXC was an awful lorry compared to a sleeper cab 401 with an E320 ■■■■■■■ or an intercooled F10.
dave docwra:
Nothing springs out to me as being bad in 2011, only difference I can think of was the cost between fleet trucks compared to the top of the range vehicles.
Any Mercedes esp craptros
Okay, what was so bad about them, there was quite a few of them used as a fleet trucks and they done the job at a reasonable cost.
Horrible to drive almost to the point of breaking your back the ride is horrendous seating posistion ridiculously high I could go on, from an operating view ask gingerfold he could flll you in with the gory details or read the thread about them
Mr Gingerfold problems have been with a more modern Mercedes Truck not a 2011 model, it seems quite clear to me that the main problem has been the dealers lack of understanding & caring which can break any confidence in the manufacturers products present and in the future. I work with a fleet who operate older Mercs and thankfully their old Scania keep us busy, I quite often look at the Merc engines with their corroded original bolts on the manifolds after 12 years of trouble free service which they certainly haven’t received with their Scanias.
gingerfold:
^^^^^^^
It isn’t quite as simple as either torque or horse power. Its a combination of both characteristics and correct gearing that determines how good or otherwise a truck performs. Even today modern engines with very high torque figures don’t seem to pull very well in certain situations.
Horsepower is simply torque x engine speed.
The engine speed is a given at any point on the graph.
So it’s all about torque and the L12/TL12 came up short in that regard v Rolls and ■■■■■■■ and TD120.
That torque deficit being as close as makes no difference to reflecting its leverage at the crank deficit.
Agreed wrong gearing can cancel out a lot of any advantage at the flywheel.
But there was no way that the L12/TL12 was ever going to match the Eagle/■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in terms of specific output, at the flywheel, at equivalent rpm.
Or even the smaller capacity 680 as DAF proved.
Ironically Ramone noticed it and said it not me.
I asked why the 12.47 litre L12 came out at 203bhp which wasnt spectacular , i mistakenly thought the TL12 was a turbo version of the AV760, this wasnt the case. The L12 i suspect was an olive branch for AEC customers which didn`t work . The L12 was a non turbo TL12 which more informed posters mentioned was the reason why the power was down due to several reasons lower engine speed being one and being designed as a turbo was another. The AV760 produced up to 220 bhp without a turbo , that was why i was puzzled to see the output of the L12. To compare the L12 to a TD120 is a strange one
newmercman:
Fast forward to the mid 80s and yes, the Brits all had a decent alternative to the Europeans, but the old crap was still available, a day cab 401 with a 6LXC was an awful lorry compared to a sleeper cab 401 with an E320 ■■■■■■■ or an intercooled F10.
But why would the Brits want to do that ?.
Unless they thought the percieved commercial suicide in not doing so, to meet an ongoing retarded market demand, outweighed any percieved commercial suicide caused to their reputation in doing so.Assuming they’d even thought of the latter.
If so obviously the wrong call.
Or was it intentional commercial suicide on higher orders because the politicians and bankers had bet on the foreign competition to win a rigged race.But they had to make it look good for the workers and any off message politicians by pretending they’d tried.From experience with lies like accept massive redundancies now to save the rest of your jobs in the longer term being the order of the day.
