ramone:
You have got to start reading posts , in `73 very few standard engines in fleet form pushed out 273 bhp, the Marathon did prompting Volvo to introduce the 290 , the L12 and TL12 were based on the AV760 but were a big development compared with the AV760
But an engine introduced to the market in '73 will still need to be relevant in '83 - 88 if not later.
Eagle mk 111 305 1973 - Perkins TX 1990 -.
Volvo TD120 1970 - 1992.
DAF DK 1973 - 1995.
Last but not least the Mack 673 1973 - at least 1988.
As for not many trucks with 273 in 1973 ironically the Scammell Crusader with the derated 305/280 Rolls was one of them.
As for L12/TL12 it’s obvious that for some reason it was a derated lump v the 760.With neither the expected output in NA or Turbo form.Why would Leyland have wanted to do that.
newmercman:
Again we fail to understand what the TL12 was designed, built and sold for. It was never meant to be groundbreaking, never meant to win Top Trumps
^ 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.
Don’t be an arse, we all know the score on the BL front, Jaguar were in trouble, sales and quality were appalling, Rover did ok thanks to the 4x4 division, the old bill and middle manager company cars, Triumph had the Stag and the TR7 which negates any positives there.
Leyland truck and bus had decent sales and a second to none export market, yes there were some ■■■■ ups, the V8 situation has been explained to you countless times already, but to reiterate, it was a known flawed design rushed into production for many reasons, all of them wrong, the same goes for the fixed head engines, rushed into production instead of being tested and the results are not unexpected, they were absolute ■■■, possibly the biggest ■■■■ up ever made in the world of lorries, no not possibly, they were without doubt a complete disaster. So much so that in comparison the Allegro, Marina, Stag and TR7 all seem like a good idea.
So, with your extensive knowledge of architecture, crank leverage and the rest of the crap you quote at every opportunity, you’re in charge, it’s 1970 and you’ve got to build the lorry to save Leyland trucks, from bumper to bumper, you have to market it, sell it and make a profit, what are you going to do?
ramone:
You have got to start reading posts , in `73 very few standard engines in fleet form pushed out 273 bhp, the Marathon did prompting Volvo to introduce the 290 , the L12 and TL12 were based on the AV760 but were a big development compared with the AV760
But an engine introduced to the market in '73 will still need to be relevant in '83 - 88 if not later.
Eagle mk 111 305 1973 - Perkins TX 1990 -.
Volvo TD120 1970 - 1992.
Well the TL 's roots go back to the mid '60s
newmercman:
Again we fail to understand what the TL12 was designed, built and sold for. It was never meant to be groundbreaking, never meant to win Top Trumps
^ 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.
Why do you call it an anchor when it performed as well or better than similar output engines. You don’t make any sense at times
ramone:
I can’t think of another British manufacturer offering 320bhp engines as standard in 1973. The 140 Scania was a rare and too heavy option but not a run of the mill fleet vehicle . In the '60s 6 wheeler units were appearing in anticipation of weight increases that never happened. The average unit of today pushes out between 440 and 460 so the 10 bhp per ton is still regarded as the fleet norm.
In hindsight Leyland should have turbocharged the 760 much earlier instead of bothering with the V8. By `73 they could have expanded on the TL without the nervousness they had instilled in many hauliers , but of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. The TL was a very good engine and when compared with similar output vehicles could more than match many of them . The L12 is the one that puzzles me when the AV760 was already there, it was a duplication of engines
Yes, you are quite right we are still hovering around or slightly over the 10bhp per ton mark, but that applies especially to those vehicles on full weight work, huge numbers of vehicles are in the postage parcels and similar where they often run round loaded at near enough the same weight 6 axle bulk carriers tare off at, but have the same engines as those regularly running at max weights for probably the majority of cases, for vehicles on such work the following does not really apply.
I know this isn’t the thread for this discussion, but with the traffic levels out there and the speeds modern traffic take roundabouts and junctions at, it’s increasingly difficult for vehicles running heavy at the magic 10bhp per ton mark to get moving quickly enough.
It isn’t so much the bhp figure, which only really comes into play when the engine is pulling from somewhere near its peak torque revs, its that to all intents and purposes fleet spec motors up to and including 500hp rated engines are no bigger in swept volume than those old 70’s and 80’s designs and in many cases smaller still, hence no sheer guts to get the thing moving from standstill, coupled with awful automated manual gearboxes even if overridden manually by someone with nous still take too long to select the next gear and resume power.
Anyone who drove decent 14 litre ■■■■■■■■ will know whats missing regarding lugging power to get the modern stuff moving, even the humble Buffalo could be relied on to get shifting rapidly away @ 32tons, helped it must be said by the slick fast changes that Fuller box allowed.
Sorry for the thread drift by the way.
I am guessing here but would think that the 440 to 460 bhp sector would be where most sales are at.
I get your point about the parcel sector where most of their work is trunking double shifted at low weights , i suppose the higher output keeps them on top of the job. These bright sparks in the parcel industry advertising that you can order up to midnight for next day delivery adds to the pressure. I know for certain M A N and Merc can’t offer parts that quick but a more important pair of shoes or jeans can be had in a few hours
newmercman:
Again we fail to understand what the TL12 was designed, built and sold for. It was to go into the lorries ran by Leyland’s customers. It was never meant to be groundbreaking, never meant to win Top Trumps, it was a relatively unsophisticated engine based on a proven design and you know what, it did exactly what was required of it.
The end.
However it won’t be the end will it, oh no, our all knowing friend from junction nine will continue on his crusade to rubbish everything that came out of the Leyland stable in a deluded attempt to blame designers working on a limited budget thanks to the car division swallowing all the profits to keep on producing the complete and utter crap it made, that is on the few days when it was actually working and not striking.
We will compare it to every engine ever made to bring attention to its shortcomings, even though the author of these endless tirades has absolutely zero experience of any of the “superior” engines he uses as comparison, with the exception of the Daf DK series.
The reply to this would most likely have started with a to be fair, yet there’s nothing fair about it is there, every other participant has contributed positively to this thread, not always glowing reports or claims that the TL12 was the best thing since sliced bread, but positive in the way they conduct themselves and then like a pigeon playing chess, Carryfast turns up and the excrement contacts the air distribution device.
To add insult to injury, the thread is about the Leyland Buffalo, you couldn’t make up this up ffs.
A question for you , why did they call it the Buffalo , the top weight Leylands were Beavers ?
I know that the Marathon was so named in the AEC tradition of names starting with M, Leyland on the other hand used animal names, Badger, Bear, Beaver, Bison, Boxer, Buffalo, Cub, Hippo, Lynx, Mastiff, Octopus, Retriever, Steer, Terrier and there’sprobablya whole lot more I don’t know. How the Comet fit into that lot is a mystery to me.
newmercman:
I know that the Marathon was so named in the AEC tradition of names starting with M, Leyland on the other hand used animal names, Badger, Bear, Beaver, Bison, Boxer, Buffalo, Cub, Hippo, Lynx, Mastiff, Octopus, Retriever, Steer, Terrier and there’sprobablya whole lot more I don’t know. How the Comet fit into that lot is a mystery to me.
Leyland’s buses were animals too: Tiger, Leoopard, Lioness, Lion etc. There was even a Gnu! Like the Comet, the Titan bus seems to have slipped in as a non-sequiteur
newmercman:
I know that the Marathon was so named in the AEC tradition of names starting with M, Leyland on the other hand used animal names, Badger, Bear, Beaver, Bison, Boxer, Buffalo, Cub, Hippo, Lynx, Mastiff, Octopus, Retriever, Steer, Terrier and there’sprobablya whole lot more I don’t know. How the Comet fit into that lot is a mystery to me.
newmercman:
I know that the Marathon was so named in the AEC tradition of names starting with M, Leyland on the other hand used animal names, Badger, Bear, Beaver, Bison, Boxer, Buffalo, Cub, Hippo, Lynx, Mastiff, Octopus, Retriever, Steer, Terrier and there’sprobablya whole lot more I don’t know. How the Comet fit into that lot is a mystery to me.
Carryfast:
But an engine introduced to the market in '73 will still need to be relevant in '83 - 88 if not later.
Eagle mk 111 305 1973 - Perkins TX 1990 -.
Volvo TD120 1970 - 1992.
Well the TL 's roots go back to the mid '60s
Not according to Gingerfold.It was a new design with little in common with the 760.
( Obviously other than its crippled 590 based engine block dimensions ).
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.
Why do you call it an anchor when it performed as well or better than similar output engines. You don’t make any sense at times
An anchor is actually an old school car drag racing term used to describe a large capacity motor with a low output.IE large heavy and doesn’t do anything other than stop the thing from going anywhere fast.
So it performed worse than other motors of similar capacity.The L12 also performed worse than the 180 Gardner in specific terms.
Cav said that the Mack Maxidyne 673 was the reference point that they were supposedly aiming for with the TL’s design.Not with that bore stroke ratio they couldn’t possibly have been.Also as proven by the fact that they didn’t follow the Mack’s inter cooled turbo from the start.
Carryfast:
But an engine introduced to the market in '73 will still need to be relevant in '83 - 88 if not later.
Eagle mk 111 305 1973 - Perkins TX 1990 -.
Volvo TD120 1970 - 1992.
Well the TL 's roots go back to the mid '60s
Not according to Gingerfold.It was a new design with little in common with the 760.
( Obviously other than its crippled 590 based engine block dimensions ).
I think the 590 was the 9.6 which they built alongside the 11.3 690/691 the TL was based but heavily developed from the 760
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.
So its the L12 you were referring to as the anchor not the TL12?
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.
Why do you call it an anchor when it performed as well or better than similar output engines. You don’t make any sense at times
An anchor is actually an old school car drag racing term used to describe a large capacity motor with a low output.IE large heavy and doesn’t do anything other than stop the thing from going anywhere fast.
So it performed worse than other motors of similar capacity.The L12 also performed worse than the 180 Gardner in specific terms.
Cav said that the Mack Maxidyne 673 was the reference point that they were supposedly aiming for with the TL’s design.Not with that bore stroke ratio they couldn’t possibly have been.Also as proven by the fact that they didn’t follow the Mack’s inter cooled turbo from the start.
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.
So its the L12 you were referring to as the anchor not the TL12?
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.
Why do you call it an anchor when it performed as well or better than similar output engines. You don’t make any sense at times
An anchor is actually an old school car drag racing term used to describe a large capacity motor with a low output.IE large heavy and doesn’t do anything other than stop the thing from going anywhere fast.
So it performed worse than other motors of similar capacity.The L12 also performed worse than the 180 Gardner in specific terms.
Cav said that the Mack Maxidyne 673 was the reference point that they were supposedly aiming for with the TL’s design.Not with that bore stroke ratio they couldn’t possibly have been.Also as proven by the fact that they didn’t follow the Mack’s inter cooled turbo from the start.
So ut was the L12 and not the TL12 that was the anchor?
Carryfast:
Not according to Gingerfold.It was a new design with little in common with the 760.
( Obviously other than its crippled 590 based engine block dimensions ).
If this was so ‘crippled’ perhaps you would like to tell us all why your heroes, Detroit Diesel, first introduced their 60 series engine as an 11.1 litre with an even more ‘crippled’ “architecture” of 130x139 -
actually worse then the AEC 11.3L at 130x142.They came up with this too in 1987 not 1954. In spite of this unforgiveable sin they got 365 bhp and 1350 lbft of torque out of it. They achieved this torque figure without any ‘shrapnel’ from broken connecting rods either.
ramone:
I think the 590 was the 9.6 which they built alongside the 11.3 690/691 the TL was based but heavily developed from the 760
The 690/691 and the 760 were clearly just progressively bored out versions of the 590’s architecture.
With no way of accomodating a longer throw crankshaft in the block design.
I think cav identified the block skirt as too narrow for sideways clearance and/or the crank shaft main bearing centre line definitely being too low in the block relative to the sump joint line ?.
At that point the reputed and totally believable idea of them wanting to use the Mack 673 as a reference point, was mathematically off the menu.
In fact the two respective designs being virtually the opposite.
They just weren’t going to get that type of specific torque output without the equivalent, or better, leverage.
If that’s true there could only have been a massive argument between AEC’s design office v Leyland along the lines of allow us to design a new block for the TL12.Adding weight to not only my view of the 12.4 litre motor’s unsuitability, but also the idea that Leyland Group as a whole, including the car division, was deliberately driven onto the rocks to the eventual advantage of the foreign competition.
