The Conclusions section at the end tells us something. In those days, it was not 141 vs. F12 then the rest. The MAN V10 was king of the road. It had more cylinders, more engine capacity, no troublesome exhaust supercharger and a nearly-flat floor for the driver. Reading these forums, one reads of odd engine failures on 140s, so it is easy to imagine the hauliers of the day holding the German makes in higher regard than the Swedes.
The MAN comes out well, and I must admit I liked those F8 cabs. However, the ones I drove had 13-sp Fullers with a floor-change rather than the column-change of the test vehicle. Personal preference, of course, but I do prefer a floor-change. Robert
[zb]
anorak:
The Conclusions section at the end tells us something. In those days, it was not 141 vs. F12 then the rest. The MAN V10 was king of the road. It had more cylinders, more engine capacity, no troublesome exhaust supercharger and a nearly-flat floor for the driver. Reading these forums, one reads of odd engine failures on 140s, so it is easy to imagine the hauliers of the day holding the German makes in higher regard than the Swedes.
The test was realistically a two horse race between the Transcon v MAN.In which there was no reason to think that the ■■■■■■■ would have been any less durable/reliable.While it’s difficult to believe that the ■■■■■■■■ 30% torque advantage wouldn’t have crushed the MAN in terms of the speed v fuel consumption comparison.The fuel consumption comparison figure on the motorway let alone hill sector for example looks ridiculous when compared to the main road figure which looks more realistic.I’d guess that such silly road test publicity anomalies might explain some of the reasons why the Transcon was such an under rated truck in the day.IE many potential buyers would have predictably have taken the supposed worst case 3 something mpg figure and supposed just 1 something mph average speed advantage at face value and written the Ford off at that point.It would have been interesting to have seen the driving methods being employed to get such crap figures from an engine with that amount of torque combined with the ideal transmission.
The Ford’s hill fuel use was the worst, but not by a great margin. Its average speed on those sections was the best,so that would account for some of the extra cfuel used. ■■ these phone keypads. Theor spelling os atrocious:-). Other roadtests of Transcons give the clue as to its low take-up: tales of a wallowy ride, wandering steering bad brakes and high unladen weight abound. In those days, GB opertors still used lots of flat trailers, so its high-and-square cab was not gping to help, especially on an empty M6, with no coppers about:-).
Both 855,s would/should have been small cams so the fuel millage wouldn’t have been brilliant.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
The Conclusions section at the end tells us something. In those days, it was not 141 vs. F12 then the rest. The MAN V10 was king of the road. It had more cylinders, more engine capacity, no troublesome exhaust supercharger and a nearly-flat floor for the driver. Reading these forums, one reads of odd engine failures on 140s, so it is easy to imagine the hauliers of the day holding the German makes in higher regard than the Swedes.The test was realistically a two horse race between the Transcon v MAN.In which there was no reason to think that the ■■■■■■■ would have been any less durable/reliable.While it’s difficult to believe that the ■■■■■■■■ 30% torque advantage wouldn’t have crushed the MAN in terms of the speed v fuel consumption comparison.The fuel consumption comparison figure on the motorway let alone hill sector for example looks ridiculous when compared to the main road figure which looks more realistic.I’d guess that such silly road test publicity anomalies might explain some of the reasons why the Transcon was such an under rated truck in the day.IE many potential buyers would have predictably have taken the supposed worst case 3 something mpg figure and supposed just 1 something mph average speed advantage at face value and written the Ford off at that point.It would have been interesting to have seen the driving methods being employed to get such crap figures from an engine with that amount of torque combined with the ideal transmission.
Well for certain the 855 was no way less reliable than any of MANs D25 series whether in inline or v formation.Most definently during 1976 when the 855 switched to big cam it had the creditials to crush any automotive truck engine.The technology ■■■■■■■ then had at that point was leagues ahead of the competitors.Was it Bedford who fitted NTA,s at 400hp?
railstaff:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
The Conclusions section at the end tells us something. In those days, it was not 141 vs. F12 then the rest. The MAN V10 was king of the road. It had more cylinders, more engine capacity, no troublesome exhaust supercharger and a nearly-flat floor for the driver. Reading these forums, one reads of odd engine failures on 140s, so it is easy to imagine the hauliers of the day holding the German makes in higher regard than the Swedes.The test was realistically a two horse race between the Transcon v MAN.In which there was no reason to think that the ■■■■■■■ would have been any less durable/reliable.While it’s difficult to believe that the ■■■■■■■■ 30% torque advantage wouldn’t have crushed the MAN in terms of the speed v fuel consumption comparison.The fuel consumption comparison figure on the motorway let alone hill sector for example looks ridiculous when compared to the main road figure which looks more realistic.I’d guess that such silly road test publicity anomalies might explain some of the reasons why the Transcon was such an under rated truck in the day.IE many potential buyers would have predictably have taken the supposed worst case 3 something mpg figure and supposed just 1 something mph average speed advantage at face value and written the Ford off at that point.It would have been interesting to have seen the driving methods being employed to get such crap figures from an engine with that amount of torque combined with the ideal transmission.
Well for certain the 855 was no way less reliable than any of MANs D25 series whether in inline or v formation.Most definently during 1976 when the 855 switched to big cam it had the creditials to crush any automotive truck engine.The technology ■■■■■■■ then had at that point was leagues ahead of the competitors.Was it Bedford who fitted NTA,s at 400hp?
IIRC the 14-litre / 855 big-cam wasn’t available in UK until about '78. ■■■■■■■ was trialling it in ERFs from about '75 and they (ERF) were using big-cam 290s by the end of the decade. ERF were using NTA @ 400bhp by the end of the '80s. The 400bhp engine in '70s Bedford TMs was a Detroit. Robert
railstaff:
Both 855,s would/should have been small cams so the fuel millage wouldn’t have been brilliant.
It’s probably easy to under estimate the efficiency of the ■■■■■■■ in either case because of gearing and driving variables in the day.In this case it’s putting out around 70 lb/ft per litre at 1,400 rpm which is a respectable figure by the standards of the day regardless.If we ignore the weird hill sector fuel figure,which I’m guessing is an anomaly and just concentrate on an average of the main road and motorway figure we get a reasonable 6.3 mpg.Bearing in mind that the motorway figure should have been expected to be better not worse than the main road figure,as in the case of the MAN.While the hill sector would have been expected to be a lot better than that provided by the lesser torque output and wider gear ratios of the Marathon.I’d guess 6.0-6.5 mpg potential in the real world if geared and driven with care.
Big cam 1 was released in 1976,of course whether the British truck builders used it in 1976 I have no idea but its potential was for sure unmatched.
railstaff:
Big cam 1 was released in 1976,of course whether the British truck builders used it in 1976 I have no idea but its potential was for sure unmatched.
The E290 seemed to be put into mainstream use arguably later than it could/should have been.While it’s more a question of why wasn’t the E320 brought online far sooner and certainly from the start of the T45 production.On that note there’s probably no reason,as to why that hypothetical idea of a full width Marathon cab development,with an E320 and Fuller 13 speed,couldn’t have been put up against the F12 and DAF 2800 by 1978 at least,other than political orders from the US and UK government stopping it.Also with the win win of removing the need for the expense of T45 development.Instead of which the Marathon 2 was stuck with the obsolete TL12 and narrow short sleeper let alone the T45 later being crippled by the same engine and so called low datum short sleeper on introduction in 1980.In which case it’s impossible to believe that the uk truck manufacturing industry wasn’t deliberately sabotaged for geopolitical reasons just like the rest of the economy in the day.In that it took until 1985 to make anything like the product that Leyland needed in 1976-8.The rest is history 
One major snag ■■■■■■■ had with UK truck builders was the installation of the engines.■■■■■■■ were concerned with the cooling side of things.Radiator sizing was a problem ■■■■■■■ were not happy with.Bearing in mind in the states it was possible to obtain automotive twin turbo 855 rated at 475hp and infact in railcar application the 855 went as high as 635hp.Plus with the slightly later 855 the cooling system was altered to low flow or cooling on demand with the adoption of a modified water pump.
railstaff:
One major snag ■■■■■■■ had with UK truck builders was the installation of the engines.■■■■■■■ were concerned with the cooling side of things.Radiator sizing was a problem ■■■■■■■ were not happy with.Bearing in mind in the states it was possible to obtain automotive twin turbo 855 rated at 475hp and infact in railcar application the 855 went as high as 635hp.Plus with the slightly later 855 the cooling system was altered to low flow or cooling on demand with the adoption of a modified water pump.
Maybe late 1970’s is a bit over optimistic regarding the rate of development and availability of the big power Big Cam options even in the States.On that note the 475 at least seems to have been a small cam development going by information out there.
But as expected ‘type approval’ was stated here as being a major issue in deterring the availability of the E320’s use regardless in the early 1980’s at least.Strange how ‘type approval’ didn’t seem to be a limiting factor in the rate of development and availability of the Euro competition.Nor in the case of the use of old obsolete designs like the Detroit 71 series and NA ■■■■■■■ or just so long as the Big Cam option was limited to the E290 when it mattered.While also eventually putting the whole ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ combination out of the frame.
All high horsepower were BC1 and BC2.Some of the stuff written by publications concerning 855 production were a bit wayward.If the UK hadn’t seen it,it didnt excist.Not many actually knew the real reason for the switch to big cam.
railstaff:
All high horsepower were BC1 and BC2.Some of the stuff written by publications concerning 855 production were a bit wayward.If the UK hadn’t seen it,it didnt excist.Not many actually knew the real reason for the switch to big cam.
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that anything up to 400 hp and well over 1,000 lb/ft torque would have been easily available during the late 1970’s in the form of BC1 just as it was before in the case of the small cam.While it’s unarguable that the trade press seemed to be on message with an obvious plot to ■■■■■■■ the Brits in that regard v their foreign competition.The evidence of the use of ‘type approval’ as a protectionist measure to help the foreign competition,not to mention the US and UK governments both being complicit in all that,also seems damning.Also have to say I heard all this first hand in the day from those on the front line working in the automotive manufacturing industry that we/they were being sacrificed by their own government to keep the Krauts happy.IE too much to be coincidence.In my own example Faun and later Rosenbauer being the obvious winners when Chubb were taken out of the specialist vehicle frame.In addition to both Bedford and Scammell being another two local victims of this diabolical stitch up. 
Carryfast:
railstaff:
All high horsepower were BC1 and BC2.Some of the stuff written by publications concerning 855 production were a bit wayward.If the UK hadn’t seen it,it didnt excist.Not many actually knew the real reason for the switch to big cam.I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that anything up to 400 hp and well over 1,000 lb/ft torque would have been easily available during the late 1970’s in the form of BC1 just as it was before in the case of the small cam.While it’s unarguable that the trade press seemed to be on message with an obvious plot to ■■■■■■■ the Brits in that regard v their foreign competition.The evidence of the use of ‘type approval’ as a protectionist measure to help the foreign competition,not to mention the US and UK governments both being complicit in all that,also seems damning.Also have to say I heard all this first hand in the day from those on the front line working in the automotive manufacturing industry that we/they were being sacrificed by their own government to keep the Krauts happy.IE too much to be coincidence.In my own example Faun and later Rosenbauer being the obvious winners when Chubb were taken out of the specialist vehicle frame.In addition to both Bedford and Scammell being another two local victims of this diabolical stitch up.
I suppose if you look at MAN,s history they,ve done some pretty wicked things,ERF being one of them.
railstaff:
Carryfast:
railstaff:
All high horsepower were BC1 and BC2.Some of the stuff written by publications concerning 855 production were a bit wayward.If the UK hadn’t seen it,it didnt excist.Not many actually knew the real reason for the switch to big cam.I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that anything up to 400 hp and well over 1,000 lb/ft torque would have been easily available during the late 1970’s in the form of BC1 just as it was before in the case of the small cam.While it’s unarguable that the trade press seemed to be on message with an obvious plot to ■■■■■■■ the Brits in that regard v their foreign competition.The evidence of the use of ‘type approval’ as a protectionist measure to help the foreign competition,not to mention the US and UK governments both being complicit in all that,also seems damning.Also have to say I heard all this first hand in the day from those on the front line working in the automotive manufacturing industry that we/they were being sacrificed by their own government to keep the Krauts happy.IE too much to be coincidence.In my own example Faun and later Rosenbauer being the obvious winners when Chubb were taken out of the specialist vehicle frame.In addition to both Bedford and Scammell being another two local victims of this diabolical stitch up.
I suppose if you look at MAN,s history they,ve done some pretty wicked things,ERF being one of them.
DAF v Leyland,PACCAR v Foden,Bedford being taken out conveniently smoothing the way for Volvo to take out GMC completely.The total removal of the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ option in Euroland including here among other issues like uk manufacturers losing their dominance over uk military orders.The evidence gets more damning the more you look at it.
I have to totally agree with you on that respect.Its a farce.I had to laugh when MAN,s uk MD(des evans) proclaimed the M11 wouldn’t extend beyond Euro 3 compliance and so were dropping it,yet we,d been working with it at Euro 5 compliance at the same time and infact King Long were taking Euro 5 M11 as their base engine.But the UK government has allowed it to happen.
railstaff:
I suppose if you look at MAN,s history they,ve done some pretty wicked things,ERF being one of them.
They have always been ruthless commercially. They swapped their old D21 engine for Saviem’s new cab in the late 1960’s, got Daimler to help them develop their new D25, and flogged the D21 and the cab to a host of East and West European subsidiaries. During all of this, both ranges of engines, plus the rest of their engineering, was first rate. In the period we are discussing, MAN was a formidable company. They had a strong hand, and played it well. Only my opinion, of course.
railstaff:
I have to totally agree with you on that respect.Its a farce.I had to laugh when MAN,s uk MD(des evans) proclaimed the M11 wouldn’t extend beyond Euro 3 compliance and so were dropping it,yet we,d been working with it at Euro 5 compliance at the same time and infact King Long were taking Euro 5 M11 as their base engine.But the UK government has allowed it to happen.
- Sorry; missed the bit where you said which firm you worked for.
- Who are King Long?
- Thanks for new, very well-informed contributions.
■■■■■■■ S.A product training.
Chinese coach builders.
Thank you for the compliment.
How good was.the Euro5 M11? If it jad started to fall behind the Euopean competition on power or sfc, then that might have contributed to ■■■■■■■■ decision to call it a day in Europe. Of course, the fact that most of its sales were to firms which had been taken over by vertically-integrated parents was a good enough reason on its own.
Is that 12-13 litre engine, which they were developong in China, in production yet?