Comparing these two pictures showing the air-intake pipe connected to the filters, it looks to me as if the only real difference is the extension pipe over the cab roof (and the fact that with the 6x4 the filters are bigger and there are two of them). Therefore it must have been easily possible to have the roof pipes on a 4x2 sleeper. Or am I missing a trick here? The thick plottens!
> [zb]
> anorak:
> > whisperingsmith:
> > > [zb]
> > > anorak:
> > > Regarding cab suspension on Crusaders, read the paragraph that straddles the pages:
> > > 3
> >
> >
> > Any chance you can scan the whole article - an interesting read & one I seem to remember from years back.
>
>
> There was a whole series of Middle East reports. This is the second one:
> archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … stery-tour
>
> The first article will be in a preceding issue, which I could not find. 
Thanks for that ZBA
Picture from the NA3T website taken in Hull.
jshepguis:
Picture from the NA3T website taken in Hull.
Blimey. Is that a mid-lift? Presumably not a steery!
Like this one perhaps?
ERF-NGC-European:
I’ve been looking through a load of pics of Crusaders and it occurs to me that a lot of them have front-mounted exhausts under the cab.No 6x4s appear to have this.
Nearly all 4x2s have them, from L-reg right through to V-reg.
Would I be right in thinking that Crusaders fitted with the RR 220 had rear-mounted exhausts and the RR 280 and 290 engined units had front-mounted ones?
Please advise!
Rowena
0
The 220RR 4x2s had a slightly smaller exhaust box and pipe, the 280 and 290s were a bit larger bore, but all fitted at the front. I moved one of mine up the rear of the cab but unfortunately the gases and dirt used to get sucked in the air intake so it was quite costly on air filters!
stevecook:
ERF-NGC-European:
I’ve been looking through a load of pics of Crusaders and it occurs to me that a lot of them have front-mounted exhausts under the cab.No 6x4s appear to have this.
Nearly all 4x2s have them, from L-reg right through to V-reg.
Would I be right in thinking that Crusaders fitted with the RR 220 had rear-mounted exhausts and the RR 280 and 290 engined units had front-mounted ones?
Please advise!
Rowena
0
The 220RR 4x2s had a slightly smaller exhaust box and pipe, the 280 and 290s were a bit larger bore, but all fitted at the front. I moved one of mine up the rear of the cab but unfortunately the gases and dirt used to get sucked in the air intake so it was quite costly on air filters!
Thanks Steve! That’s useful. 
The 220RR 4x2s had a slightly smaller exhaust box and pipe, the 280 and 290s were a bit larger bore, but all fitted at the front. I moved one of mine up the rear of the cab but unfortunately the gases and dirt used to get sucked in the air intake so it was quite costly on air filters!
stevecook
I would suspect this is why the military 6x4 Crusaders had the over cab air intakes, the pic of a military Crusader recovery below shows the position of the exhausts. It also has to be remembered that the convoy speeds of military vehicles of this size were normally not above 40mph so exhaust gases would be easily drawn into the air intakes if positioned behind the cab, maybe this was something that was highlighted in trials. I can think of no other reason as water ingress would not have been a problem. Franky.
^^^Cheers Franky!
Apologies if this subject has been dealt with before; but the 310 engine quoted in the caption to this Crusader picture: would that be a version of the Rolls Royce Eagle 3 engine rated at 305 that was standard in the 6x4 chassis?
Rowena
CM had lost faith in the ride quality of the Crusader here, seeming to cite for-and-aft movement at the seat against it:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … s-standard
Maybe the Middle East article one was a sleeper cab, with a longer w/b?
ERF-NGC-European:
Apologies if this subject has been dealt with before; but the 310 engine quoted in the caption to this Crusader picture: would that be a version of the Rolls Royce Eagle 3 engine rated at 305 that was standard in the 6x4 chassis?Rowena
It says 280bhp in the text:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … cubic-foot
This earlier article says the Crusaders were accompanied by some Berliet TR320s.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … -paris-hop
Looks like the caption to the photo got mixed up with these:
[zb]
anorak:
CM had lost faith in the ride quality of the Crusader here, seeming to cite for-and-aft movement at the seat against it:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … s-standardMaybe the Middle East article one was a sleeper cab, with a longer w/b?
The trouble with Ancient Brits Heading East (to steal truckerash’s phrase) in those days was that our short wheelbase units gave a poorer ride owing to the ‘cab nod’ characteristic of such units. As far as I know, the sleeper cabs had the same w/b as the sleepers and BRS wouldn’t have been sending anything but its most basic day-cabbed units down there. If they were about to throw money at the project I would have thought that they would have started with sleeper cabs! Their record with the Marathons didn’t inspire confidence. If I’m doing BRS an injustice here, speak now or forever hold thy peace!
[zb]
anorak:ERF-NGC-European:
Apologies if this subject has been dealt with before; but the 310 engine quoted in the caption to this Crusader picture: would that be a version of the Rolls Royce Eagle 3 engine rated at 305 that was standard in the 6x4 chassis?Rowena
1
It says 280bhp in the text:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … cubic-footThis earlier article says the Crusaders were accompanied by some Berliet TR320s.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … -paris-hop
Looks like the caption to the photo got mixed up with these:
0
Thank you very much for saving me from a long and fruitless search! Yes, as so often happens in transport journalism, the caption writer was already halfway through his Friday afternoon bottle of vino collapso and got it wrong!
Nonetheless, I’d love to know if any 4x2 general haulage Crusader was ever fitted - or indeed COULD be fitted - with the slightly bigger 305 Eagle 3 lump.
Ro
[zb]
anorak:
CM had lost faith in the ride quality of the Crusader here, seeming to cite for-and-aft movement at the seat
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … s-standard
Going by this at least the Eagle’s ‘290’ horses seemed to be more than a match for the DAF DKS’ 300 
and how does ‘290’ translate as 275 net. 
No mention of 4x2s with more than 290BHP. The 287bhp rating on the 6x4 page must be the installed output of the RR305. 318 has to be Detroit. The twin stack versions may be DD.
ERF-NGC-European:
Nonetheless, I’d love to know if any 4x2 general haulage Crusader was ever fitted - or indeed COULD be fitted - with the slightly bigger 305 Eagle 3 lump.Ro
The Eagle was all the same size motor from 220 up to 400.Should be able to put a TX 400 in a 4 x 2 Crusader in theory at least if the turbo, intercooler and their plumbing fits.
No mention of 4x2s with more than 290BHP. The 287bhp rating on the 6x4 page must be the installed output of the RR305. 318 has to be Detroit. The twin stack versions may be DD.
Nice work. Yes, we can ‘park’ the Detroit for now.
I’ve been through my Crusader files and there is a multitude of Crusaders that did the regular overland Middle-East run. Could it be that the old Crusader held its own better than popular opinion would have us believe; in much the same way as the ERF European? Olins Overland Ltd, for example ran no fewer than 15 Crusaders on regular Iran / Iraq / Saudi work. The article is actually on this thread!
And here’s another queer turn-up for the books!
I always thought that the earlier 4x2 domestic Crusaders had RR 220s with Fuller 10sp 'boxes.
According to the Commercial Motor mag 01/10/71, BRS (BRSL) Crusaders had the RR 265 with an RTO 909A 'box. Can anyone elaborate on that little bombshell?
Link:
