Carryfast:
Blimey so 240 Gardner engined trucks didn’t actually exist because no was actually able to get one.If no one needed an engine producing more than 250 hp then obviously no one would have wanted the TL12 and there would have been no point in developing the AV 760 along those lines.While the Gardner’s fuel efficiency,in the around 700 lb/ft torque league,was invincible, being the exception that proved the rule of BMEP being king.
If the Rolls or ■■■■■■■ wasn’t the way forward for Leyland how do you explain Leyland fitting them in the Marathon,Crusader and Guy Big J.Then finally dropping the TL12 altogether when it was all too late in the T45.
As for who gives a flying zb about stroke length maybe you should ask DAF why it went for a well over 6 inch stroke in the case of the MX as opposed to staying with the old 680’s.
My ‘fixation’ on the 2800 is because I actually drove that and the Marathon and ironically had to spend nights out in the primitive cramped by comparison Marathon cab.As for the 2800 windscreen line this is of course the core product which provided DAF with the resources to takeover Leyland not vice versa.Also don’t ever remember anyone driving off the road or into anything with the thing because they couldn’t see where they were going.Not to mention the inconvenient fact of the DAF engine’s obvious specific torque advantage over the TL12.
I didn’t say Leyland should have taken the SA cab.I said they should have gone to MP and said ‘we need something just like that’.While if you think that the SA cab was only ‘adequate’ what does that say about the narrow,short sleeper Marathon’s.
Unlike Bedford few other Euro manufacturers needed the Detroit although FTF wouldn’t have survived without it.The issue and question in this case being why did Bedford choose to ■■■■■■■ its TM with the obsolete inefficient ( in house ) 71 series rather than standardise on the more efficient ( also obviously in house ) turbo and after cooled 92 series.Bearing in mind,like Leyland in the case of DAF,GM’s obvious ‘business relationship’ with at ‘some’ point Volvo.Strange how you’re all for an inferior in house option in the case of Leyland but not the superior in house option in the case of Bedford.
Are you sure you don’t work for the uk government trade and industry department.If not you should because you’d fit in perfectly.
The 240 was in such high demand that there was a very long waiting list was my point … they were the boat anchors if you remember
The Rolls/■■■■■■■ were fitted because Leyland were about to phase out the Big J and were offering the Marathon as an alternative for Rolls/■■■■■■■ users
Well to this day I have never heard of any haulier buying a lorry on the stroke length
I actually drove a 2800 and at over 64 I had to stoop to see through the windscreen ,as for torque ,the ones I drove were very average on the hills Leyland didnt have the money to get Motor Panels to design a cab , the Marathon was a stop gap for the T45 which took longer to design and test than the Marathon ever did with copious amounts of money spent up in Lancashire
Why didn`t Bedford offer the E290 ,oh they did and the L10 but nobody wanted them .
Brought up and worked in transport all my life … have you ■■?
The 240 Gardner was in such high demand because if anyone wanted less than 800 lb/ft that was just about the best way to get it.Regardless of it being a boat anchor compared to turbo ■■■■■■■ and Rolls in the around 800-900 lb/ft + league.
You seem to have missed the fact that Leyland also offered the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ in the Marathon and effectively exclusively in the Crusader with Scammell more or less refusing to use the ‘in house’ Leyland options.Then for ‘some’ reason lumbering the T45 with the TL12 before dropping the thing and following Scammell’s lead by effectively only offering Rolls and ■■■■■■■ it before closing the doors.Much like they did in the case of putting the E290 in the Marathon v AEC.
I’m sure that going to MP and asking them for an SA 400 copy would have been cheaper than the development and production costs of the Marathon cab.
I didn’t say anything about Bedford using the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in mind that using the in house turbo and after cooled 92 series Detroit was a much better option for them than using the TL12 was for Leyland.The TM’s reputation having been predictably wrecked regardless by using the 71 series in it by that point.
I was brought up working in a truck manufacturing operation with a wider customer base to keep happy than Leyland including the USA,making things which lives depended on.One of my jobs there being to tell the management about anything which I thought didn’t meet the grade.
Thank god you didn’t work for British Leyland then.
railstaff:
Thank god you didn’t work for British Leyland then.
To be fair that probably wasn’t the best reference to have on a CV if I’d have wanted to stay in the industry.
While the DK and the MX obviously follow my logic.
On that note remind us what were the bore stroke dimensions which ■■■■■■■ chose for the ISX v N14.If I’ve read it right they chose to reduce the bore and increase the stroke ?.While I can obviously see the reasoning for that while the TL12 admirers would obviously have gone for vice versa.So what’s your view on that were ■■■■■■■ right or wrong.
railstaff:
Thank god you didn’t work for British Leyland then.
To be fair that probably wasn’t the best reference to have on a CV if I’d have wanted to stay in the industry.
While the DK and the MX obviously follow my logic.
On that note remind us what were the bore stroke dimensions which ■■■■■■■ chose for the ISX v N14.If I’ve read it right they chose to reduce the bore and increase the stroke ?.While I can obviously see the reasoning for that while the TL12 admirers would obviously have gone for vice versa.So what’s your view on that were ■■■■■■■ right or wrong.
railstaff:
Thank god you didn’t work for British Leyland then.
To be fair that probably wasn’t the best reference to have on a CV if I’d have wanted to stay in the industry.
While the DK and the MX obviously follow my logic.
On that note remind us what were the bore stroke dimensions which ■■■■■■■ chose for the ISX v N14.If I’ve read it right they chose to reduce the bore and increase the stroke ?.While I can obviously see the reasoning for that while the TL12 admirers would obviously have gone for vice versa.So what’s your view on that were ■■■■■■■ right or wrong.
How many big ■■■■■■■ are sold in Europe now?
You did see the reference to the DAF DK ( 130 mm x 146 mm ) v MX ( 130 mm x 162 mm ).
You can add Volvo TD120 130mm x 150 v D13 131 mm x 158 mm.
Or Scania DC09 and DC 13 130 mm x 154 mm.
Merc OM 471 132 mm x 156 mm.
Seems to be a lot following my logic to just be coincidence.
As for ■■■■■■■ yes just like the 1970/80’s stitched up by Euro protectionist type approval restrictions obviously with no wish by the UK and US governments to ignore them on the basis of good enough to pass US type approval should be good enough for us.
ramone:
3,Why was the TL12 flawed you mention stroke length , who gives a flying [zb] about that, what matters is performance and reliability for hauliers.
Oh wait.Are you sure that you’re the same ramone who wrote this.
railstaff:
Thank god you didn’t work for British Leyland then.
To be fair that probably wasn’t the best reference to have on a CV if I’d have wanted to stay in the industry.
While the DK and the MX obviously follow my logic.
On that note remind us what were the bore stroke dimensions which ■■■■■■■ chose for the ISX v N14.If I’ve read it right they chose to reduce the bore and increase the stroke ?.While I can obviously see the reasoning for that while the TL12 admirers would obviously have gone for vice versa.So what’s your view on that were ■■■■■■■ right or wrong.
Again like shown in history manufactures draw greater power from smaller engines,but when they reach their limit you then see the return of the larger engine,volvo,scania,MAN have just released a 15 litre(D38),Iveco have a Cursor 16 in the wait.■■■■■■■ naturally progressed to ISX,but do we want to go back to the days of 8LXB,s were the back cylinders hang out of the cab.Sometimes its much easier and yes diserable to adjust the stroke instead of distrupting cylinder spacing.Things have to be made compact,additional coolers,these things are not toys anymore.
The Scania DC09 should not be in that list since it raises a serious challenge to your argument. It like the Cursor 10, produces 400bhp and around 1900NM however it does this from 130x 140 dimensions (actually a shorter stroke then the engine you are attempting to ridicule) so indicates that there is another way to go to achieve output figures.
While we cannot escape the effect of surface area and leverage we just do not know what Leyland engineers could have done. What we can say is that the started off with a naturally aspirated, mechanically fuelled and controlled, two valves per cylinder, pushrod activated engine, with timing gears at the front - features which have virtually disappeared today. On the mechanical side just maybe they could have increased the stroke, the clearance issue was between the balance weights and the piston skirt initially and the bottom of the protruding liner if going further. That said there could easily have been other factors with the block which would have prevented further development. What we do know however is that other than introducing a low level of forced induction none of the other future avenues had been put into production.
What is noticeble is that they had managed to improve the part load economy of the AEC AV760 derived engine. A factor of significant interest to purchasers considering the actual horsepower requirements to maintain 40mph on a level road even at today’s weights. Recent personal experience indicating that at least one of today’s 13/14 litre megabusters ■■■■■ like ■■■■■ when asked to poodle along off the motorway with a light load.
What is certain is that what works in theory may fall flat on its face in real world practice, otherwise nothing would ever need to be tested… So until then as the forum’s self appointed engine designer please prove the theoretical pressure limitations of a 75mm crankpin coupled with a 95mm main journal.
Maybe you didn’t notice that the DC09 has got something missing as well …like a complete cylinder.
ramone:
3,Why was the TL12 flawed you mention stroke length , who gives a flying [zb] about that, what matters is performance and reliability for hauliers.
Oh wait.Are you sure that you’re the same ramone who wrote this.
When Leyland decided to end production of the TL12 there werent many options left , the 9/13 speed Fuller or the 16 speed ZF would have been the best options in my opinion to match up with either the ■■■■■■■ /Rolls but why did they ditch them for the Daf engines when Pacaar took over , because they wanted to keep it in house much like Leyland did but Leyland didnt have the funds . Daf now need to build their own gearbox to match their engines like Volvo do instead of buying in from ZF with those awful autos
railstaff:
Thank god you didn’t work for British Leyland then.
To be fair that probably wasn’t the best reference to have on a CV if I’d have wanted to stay in the industry.
Many of the engineers the various BL subsidiaries employed are doing great work for the consultancies that formed from the fragments of the original group. Their firms supply design and development engineering to vehicle manufacturers all over the world. I don’t know what you do have on your CV (do you have any qualifications, for instance?), but a stint in British Leyland would not harm future job applications.
Carryfast:
On that note remind us what were the bore stroke dimensions which ■■■■■■■ chose for the ISX v N14.If I’ve read it right they chose to reduce the bore and increase the stroke ?.While I can obviously see the reasoning for that while the TL12 admirers would obviously have gone for vice versa.So what’s your view on that were ■■■■■■■ right or wrong.
Again like shown in history manufactures draw greater power from smaller engines,but when they reach their limit you then see the return of the larger engine,volvo,scania,MAN have just released a 15 litre(D38),Iveco have a Cursor 16 in the wait.■■■■■■■ naturally progressed to ISX,but do we want to go back to the days of 8LXB,s were the back cylinders hang out of the cab.Sometimes its much easier and yes diserable to adjust the stroke instead of distrupting cylinder spacing.Things have to be made compact,additional coolers,these things are not toys anymore.
I wasn’t referring to ■■■■■■■■ correctly going for a larger capacity.I was referring to the fact that they did it by actually ‘reducing’ the bore size from that of the N14 and going for a big increase in the already decent stroke measurement instead.The common link in modern engine design rightly seeming to be all about maximising stroke length with the IVECO being the exception that proves the rule.Although even in that case they chose an increase from 10 litres to 11 to create a marginal stroke increase.
railstaff:
Thank god you didn’t work for British Leyland then.
To be fair that probably wasn’t the best reference to have on a CV if I’d have wanted to stay in the industry.
While the DK and the MX obviously follow my logic.
On that note remind us what were the bore stroke dimensions which ■■■■■■■ chose for the ISX v N14.If I’ve read it right they chose to reduce the bore and increase the stroke ?.While I can obviously see the reasoning for that while the TL12 admirers would obviously have gone for vice versa.So what’s your view on that were ■■■■■■■ right or wrong.
Again like shown in history manufactures draw greater power from smaller engines,but when they reach their limit you then see the return of the larger engine,volvo,scania,MAN have just released a 15 litre(D38),Iveco have a Cursor 16 in the wait.■■■■■■■ naturally progressed to ISX,but do we want to go back to the days of 8LXB,s were the back cylinders hang out of the cab.Sometimes its much easier and yes diserable to adjust the stroke instead of distrupting cylinder spacing.Things have to be made compact,additional coolers,these things are not toys anymore.
Off subject but Ive just bought a Volvo ex demo car and the biggest engine they now do is a 2.0 l 4 cyclinder 190 bhp .For the size of the car its quite fast they also do a 4 wheel drive version that rates at 235 bhp . The salesman said it was down to 2 young whizz kids that have come up with some new idea , I cant remember what it was though , all I know is its doing over 40 mpg and it`s no slouch
railstaff:
Thank god you didn’t work for British Leyland then.
To be fair that probably wasn’t the best reference to have on a CV if I’d have wanted to stay in the industry.
While the DK and the MX obviously follow my logic.
On that note remind us what were the bore stroke dimensions which ■■■■■■■ chose for the ISX v N14.If I’ve read it right they chose to reduce the bore and increase the stroke ?.While I can obviously see the reasoning for that while the TL12 admirers would obviously have gone for vice versa.So what’s your view on that were ■■■■■■■ right or wrong.
How many big ■■■■■■■ are sold in Europe now?
You did see the reference to the DAF DK ( 130 mm x 146 mm ) v MX ( 130 mm x 162 mm ).
You can add Volvo TD120 130mm x 150 v D13 131 mm x 158 mm.
Or Scania DC09 and DC 13 130 mm x 154 mm.
Merc OM 471 132 mm x 156 mm.
Seems to be a lot following my logic to just be coincidence.
As for ■■■■■■■ yes just like the 1970/80’s stitched up by Euro protectionist type approval restrictions obviously with no wish by the UK and US governments to ignore them on the basis of good enough to pass US type approval should be good enough for us.
The D13 Volvo makes more torque than the MX for comparable power and with a shorter stroke.
MX 1800 lbsft 510hp
D13 1850 lbsft 500hp
The reason being the fuel system is superia to the MX and more reliable than any other system in use today(unit injectors with a pilot injection).Nothing to do with stroke.
As stated the TL,s fuel system was not as good as pressure time.
railstaff:
Thank god you didn’t work for British Leyland then.
To be fair that probably wasn’t the best reference to have on a CV if I’d have wanted to stay in the industry.
While the DK and the MX obviously follow my logic.
On that note remind us what were the bore stroke dimensions which ■■■■■■■ chose for the ISX v N14.If I’ve read it right they chose to reduce the bore and increase the stroke ?.While I can obviously see the reasoning for that while the TL12 admirers would obviously have gone for vice versa.So what’s your view on that were ■■■■■■■ right or wrong.
Again like shown in history manufactures draw greater power from smaller engines,but when they reach their limit you then see the return of the larger engine,volvo,scania,MAN have just released a 15 litre(D38),Iveco have a Cursor 16 in the wait.■■■■■■■ naturally progressed to ISX,but do we want to go back to the days of 8LXB,s were the back cylinders hang out of the cab.Sometimes its much easier and yes diserable to adjust the stroke instead of distrupting cylinder spacing.Things have to be made compact,additional coolers,these things are not toys anymore.
Off subject but Ive just bought a Volvo ex demo car and the biggest engine they now do is a 2.0 l 4 cyclinder 190 bhp .For the size of the car its quite fast they also do a 4 wheel drive version that rates at 235 bhp . The salesman said it was down to 2 young whizz kids that have come up with some new idea , I cant remember what it was though , all I know is its doing over 40 mpg and it`s no slouch
Quite amazing what turbocharging can do,especially when two are fitted.
cav551:
The Scania DC09 should not be in that list since it raises a serious challenge to your argument. It like the Cursor 10, produces 400bhp and around 1900NM however it does this from 130x 140 dimensions (actually a shorter stroke then the engine you are attempting to ridicule) so indicates that there is another way to go to achieve output figures.
While we cannot escape the effect of surface area and leverage we just do not know what Leyland engineers could have done. What we can say is that the started off with a naturally aspirated, mechanically fuelled and controlled, two valves per cylinder, pushrod activated engine, with timing gears at the front - features which have virtually disappeared today. On the mechanical side just maybe they could have increased the stroke, the clearance issue was between the balance weights and the piston skirt initially and the bottom of the protruding liner if going further. That said there could easily have been other factors with the block which would have prevented further development. What we do know however is that other than introducing a low level of forced induction none of the other future avenues had been put into production.
What is noticeble is that they had managed to improve the part load economy of the AEC AV760 derived engine. A factor of significant interest to purchasers considering the actual horsepower requirements to maintain 40mph on a level road even at today’s weights. Recent personal experience indicating that at least one of today’s 13/14 litre megabusters ■■■■■ like ■■■■■ when asked to poodle along off the motorway with a light load.
What is certain is that what works in theory may fall flat on its face in real world practice, otherwise nothing would ever need to be tested… So until then as the forum’s self appointed engine designer please prove the theoretical pressure limitations of a 75mm crankpin coupled with a 95mm main journal.
Maybe you didn’t notice that the DC09 has got something missing as well …like a complete cylinder.
Except the fact is the DC09 seems to be just a 5 cylinder modular version of the DC 13 which ‘both’ have …the same 130 mm bore x 154 mm stroke.Which seems to suggest that a long stroke 9 litre 5 cylinder motor is better,in Scania’s view,than the Cursor’s 6 cylinder short stroke motor.
railstaff:
The D13 Volvo makes more torque than the MX for comparable power and with a shorter stroke.
MX 1800 lbsft 510hp
D13 1850 lbsft 500hp
Paccar states 1,850 lb/ft for the MX 13.Which just leaves the absolute mathematical certainty that using a longer lever at the crank to get it means less stress required through the piston to crank component chain.
ramone:
Off subject but Ive just bought a Volvo ex demo car and the biggest engine they now do is a 2.0 l 4 cyclinder 190 bhp .For the size of the car its quite fast they also do a 4 wheel drive version that rates at 235 bhp . The salesman said it was down to 2 young whizz kids that have come up with some new idea , I cant remember what it was though , all I know is its doing over 40 mpg and it`s no slouch
Quite amazing what turbocharging can do,especially when two are fitted.
A with an 82 mm bore and 93 mm stroke ? a great example that shows the ‘TL12’ should have been based on a 130 mm bore and 152 mm stroke then turbo and after cool the thing to within an inch of its life.
The 903 was built to a size,a bit similar to an E9 and a bit smaller than a 3408.Its a v8,most v8,s of the time had a shorter stroke.Look at it this way,to increase the stroke and stay within the cubic capacity would mean dropping the bore size,what do you suggest doing about valve area or more over the lack of it■■?
Looking at the Eagle,a truly superbly engineered piece of kit,but besides the stroke advantage there lies three different advancements in design features.
1, Different firing order.
2,Small bore exhaust manifolds designed to spool the turbocharger earlier.
3,Fuel injection pump without delievery valves.
Do we know what the TL12 boost pressure value was?
cav551:
The Scania DC09 should not be in that list since it raises a serious challenge to your argument. It like the Cursor 10, produces 400bhp and around 1900NM however it does this from 130x 140 dimensions (actually a shorter stroke then the engine you are attempting to ridicule) so indicates that there is another way to go to achieve output figures.
While we cannot escape the effect of surface area and leverage we just do not know what Leyland engineers could have done. What we can say is that the started off with a naturally aspirated, mechanically fuelled and controlled, two valves per cylinder, pushrod activated engine, with timing gears at the front - features which have virtually disappeared today. On the mechanical side just maybe they could have increased the stroke, the clearance issue was between the balance weights and the piston skirt initially and the bottom of the protruding liner if going further. That said there could easily have been other factors with the block which would have prevented further development. What we do know however is that other than introducing a low level of forced induction none of the other future avenues had been put into production.
What is noticeble is that they had managed to improve the part load economy of the AEC AV760 derived engine. A factor of significant interest to purchasers considering the actual horsepower requirements to maintain 40mph on a level road even at today’s weights. Recent personal experience indicating that at least one of today’s 13/14 litre megabusters ■■■■■ like ■■■■■ when asked to poodle along off the motorway with a light load.
What is certain is that what works in theory may fall flat on its face in real world practice, otherwise nothing would ever need to be tested… So until then as the forum’s self appointed engine designer please prove the theoretical pressure limitations of a 75mm crankpin coupled with a 95mm main journal.
Maybe you didn’t notice that the DC09 has got something missing as well …like a complete cylinder.
Except the fact is the DC09 seems to be just a 5 cylinder modular version of the DC 13 which ‘both’ have …the same 130 mm bore x 154 mm stroke.Which seems to suggest that a long stroke 9 litre 5 cylinder motor is better,in Scania’s view,than the Cursor’s 6 cylinder short stroke motor.
railstaff:
The D13 Volvo makes more torque than the MX for comparable power and with a shorter stroke.
MX 1800 lbsft 510hp
D13 1850 lbsft 500hp
Paccar states 1,850 lb/ft for the MX 13.Which just leaves the absolute mathematical certainty that using a longer lever at the crank to get it means less stress required through the piston to crank component chain.
How do you know what strain the components are under?Please enlighten me.Nearly every manufacturer has adopted steel pistons due to fuel pressure and cylinder pressure.Nearly every manufacture has adopted fractured conrods.Nearly every manufacturer is using grafite steel for the blocks.Scania must still have confidence as their offering 500hp with single cylinder heads.
