Some more unusual Crusaders, this time Aussie ones, with a special hole in the front, and different bumpers:
[zb]
anorak:
Some more unusual Crusaders, this time Aussie ones, with a special hole in the front, and different bumpers:
0
It may have been to allow easy daily-check access to save swinging the radiator out into the dusty atmosphere. Or it could have been to enable the driver to slide the Scammell name onto the top of the radiator while the Leyland badge slid behind the grille out of sight. These drivers needed to hold their heads high for Chrissake! 
Heres a clipping about the MOD spec Crusader from 1976.
Found this clipping from 1972 that shows the air intakes on the roof. So they offered this fairly early in the Crusader life bearing
in mind the first ones were built in 1968/69.
Click on page twice to read.
DEANB:
Heres a clipping about the MOD spec Crusader from 1976.1
Found this clipping from 1972 that shows the air intakes on the roof. So they offered this fairly early in the Crusader life bearing
in mind the first ones were built in 1968/69.Click on page twice to read.
0
They’re useful references: thanks Dean!
Ro
ERF-NGC-European:
“See that little brown field gate just behind the last trailer driver? Just back it in there mate!”0
Uncouple trailers 2 and 3 reverse trailer 1 through the gate drop it repeat for trailer 2 and then 3. 
DEANB:
Heres a clipping about the MOD spec Crusader from 1976.1
How does it lose 15 hp from gross to net and peak torque go from 850 lbft at 1,200 rpm to 835 lbft at 1,500 rpm.
scammell-crusader.co.uk/imag … 5specs.PDF
Carryfast:
DEANB:
Heres a clipping about the MOD spec Crusader from 1976.1
How does it lose 15 hp from gross to net and peak torque go from 850 lbft at 1,200 rpm to 835 lbft at 1,500 rpm.
scammell-crusader.co.uk/imag … 5specs.PDF
Fan, alternator, exhaust back pressure, inlet air trunking restriction etc. etc. 15 bhp is typical at that power output. Check the spec. sheet of any ■■■■■■■ 290-engined vehicle- the net installed power output is around 275 bhp.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
DEANB:
Heres a clipping about the MOD spec Crusader from 1976.1
How does it lose 15 hp from gross to net and peak torque go from 850 lbft at 1,200 rpm to 835 lbft at 1,500 rpm.
scammell-crusader.co.uk/imag … 5specs.PDFFan, alternator, exhaust back pressure, inlet air trunking restriction etc. etc. 15 bhp is typical at that power output. Check the spec. sheet of any ■■■■■■■ 290-engined vehicle- the net installed power output is around 275 bhp.
Feel free to explain how the Rolls ‘320’ produced 311 hp at 2100 rpm and 870 lbft at 1,300 rpm net installed within 6 years after the ‘305’ MkIII.That must have been a great inlet trunking upgrade.
Also why no difference in peak torque engine speed for TL12 net or gross.While I’m sure eyebrows would have been raised if in the case of the 290 ■■■■■■■■ peak torque engine speed suddenly jumped by 300 rpm on the spec sheet and lost 15 lbft to add insult to injury. 
A smart looking outfit.
sandway:
A smart looking outfit.
That photo defines the brand as much as a Contractor or Commander.I’d have felt privileged to drive it and that job being a bonus.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
How does it lose 15 hp from gross to net and peak torque go from 850 lbft at 1,200 rpm to 835 lbft at 1,500 rpm.
scammell-crusader.co.uk/imag … 5specs.PDFFan, alternator, exhaust back pressure, inlet air trunking restriction etc. etc. 15 bhp is typical at that power output. Check the spec. sheet of any ■■■■■■■ 290-engined vehicle- the net installed power output is around 275 bhp.
Feel free to explain how the Rolls ‘320’ produced 311 hp at 2100 rpm and 870 lbft at 1,300 rpm net installed within 6 years after the ‘305’ MkIII.That must have been a great inlet trunking upgrade.
Also why no difference in peak torque engine speed for TL12 net or gross.While I’m sure eyebrows would have been raised if in the case of the 290 ■■■■■■■■ peak torque engine speed suddenly jumped by 300 rpm on the spec sheet and lost 15 lbft to add insult to injury.
One set of specs shows a 15bhp difference, the figure you quote for the 320 suggests 9bhp. You should give the declared gross figures for the 320. Whatever- the power output of a thing which makes torque from a fire in a hole will be subject to a huge tolerance stack. 15 versus 9 on a nominal around 300 is nothing to get in a fluff about.
Dunno what that Leyland/■■■■■■■ blurt means.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Feel free to explain how the Rolls ‘320’ produced 311 hp at 2100 rpm and 870 lbft at 1,300 rpm net installed within 6 years after the ‘305’ MkIII.That must have been a great inlet trunking upgrade.Also why no difference in peak torque engine speed for TL12 net or gross.While I’m sure eyebrows would have been raised if in the case of the 290 ■■■■■■■■ peak torque engine speed suddenly jumped by 300 rpm on the spec sheet and lost 15 lbft to add insult to injury.
One set of specs shows a 15bhp difference, the figure you quote for the 320 suggests 9bhp. You should give the declared gross figures for the 320. Whatever- the power output of a thing which makes torque from a fire in a hole will be subject to a huge tolerance stack. 15 versus 9 on a nominal around 300 is nothing to get in a fluff about.
Dunno what that Leyland/■■■■■■■ blurt means.
I’d guess ‘320’ means 320 gross ?.
The point regards both TL12 and ■■■■■■■ ‘290’ was that in niether case does peak torque engine speed change.As would be expected.
Don’t think you’ll find any turbocharged versions of the Eagle that produced peak torque at 1,500 rpm whether it was measured net or gross.
The NA 220 did though.Again as would be expected.
My guess is the author confused the two types and exaggerated the reduction in net output.
295 at 2,100 rpm and 840 lbft at 1,200 rpm sounds reasonable bearing in mind that it was happy to pull main battle tanks like the 51t Centurion around.That’s a tall order for supposed peak torque less than 840 lbft at 1,500 rpm with a clutch, not a torque converter like the Contractor.
I think that photo safely ends any doubts and aspertions about the Eagle’s capabilities punching above its weight for a 12 litre motor available in 1973.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Feel free to explain how the Rolls ‘320’ produced 311 hp at 2100 rpm and 870 lbft at 1,300 rpm net installed within 6 years after the ‘305’ MkIII.That must have been a great inlet trunking upgrade.Also why no difference in peak torque engine speed for TL12 net or gross.While I’m sure eyebrows would have been raised if in the case of the 290 ■■■■■■■■ peak torque engine speed suddenly jumped by 300 rpm on the spec sheet and lost 15 lbft to add insult to injury.
One set of specs shows a 15bhp difference, the figure you quote for the 320 suggests 9bhp. You should give the declared gross figures for the 320. Whatever- the power output of a thing which makes torque from a fire in a hole will be subject to a huge tolerance stack. 15 versus 9 on a nominal around 300 is nothing to get in a fluff about.
Dunno what that Leyland/■■■■■■■ blurt means.
I’d guess ‘320’ means 320 gross ?.
The point regards both TL12 and ■■■■■■■ ‘290’ was that in niether case does peak torque engine speed change.As would be expected.
Don’t think you’ll find any turbocharged versions of the Eagle that produced peak torque at 1,500 rpm whether it was measured net or gross.The NA 220 did though.Again as would be expected.
My guess is the author confused the two types and exaggerated the reduction in net output.
295 at 2,100 rpm and 840 lbft at 1,200 rpm sounds reasonable bearing in mind that it was happy to pull main battle tanks like the 51t Centurion around.That’s a tall order for supposed peak torque less than 840 lbft at 1,500 rpm with a clutch, not a torque converter like the Contractor.I think that photo safely ends any doubts and aspertions about the Eagle’s capabilities punching above its weight for a 12 litre motor available in 1973.
I think I see what you’re saying. The peak torque engine speed should not change from net to gross. I agree- the RR engine has peak torque at 1200rpm. 1500 must be a typing error- are you sure you read it right?
Where do you get 295 at 2100 from? It says 290 in the specification copied above. How is an extra 5 bhp going to make any noticeable difference at all? It’s less than a full tank of fuel in that 51 ton tank LOL.
How do you deduce that the Eagle punched above its weight in 1973? The civilian 280 bhp version had a power to weight ratio of about 235 net bhp per ton (using the spec sheet you posted. Thanks). The corresponding figure for the Gardner 8LXB was 236 bhp per ton. I’d call that punching at approximately the same weight, and needing a brass duster to do so.
[zb]
anorak:
I think I see what you’re saying. The peak torque engine speed should not change from net to gross. I agree- the RR engine has peak torque at 1200rpm. 1500 must be a typing error- are you sure you read it right?Where do you get 295 at 2100 from? It says 290 in the specification copied above. How is an extra 5 bhp going to make any noticeable difference at all? It’s less than a full tank of fuel in that 51 ton tank LOL.
How do you deduce that the Eagle punched above its weight in 1973? The civilian 280 bhp version had a power to weight ratio of about 235 net bhp per ton (using the spec sheet you posted. Thanks). The corresponding figure for the Gardner 8LXB was 236 bhp per ton. I’d call that punching at approximately the same weight, and needing a brass duster to do so.
The article deffo says 835 lbft at 1,500 rpm and just can’t see that happening at 60t + without a torque converter like the Contractor.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=61389&start=840#p2721492
I just extrapolated 295 from 305 by 311 from 320.Which showed which way the wind was blowing regards the Eagle’s potential v TL12 v ■■■■■■■■
As I said hauling a Centurion around is no mean feat with I think Israel at least choosing the torque converter equipped Contractor for that job and it’s something which I didn’t know about in the day.
It’s just confirmed my gut feeling in that regard that the Eagle was a special and second to none motor.
Just because the haulage customer of the mid 1970’s only wanted a derated version doesn’t alter that fact and you just ain’t realistically going to find an 8 LXB or a TL12 hauling a 50t payload.
That’s what I call punching above its 12 litre ‘capacity’ , not its literal weight, by the standards of 1973.
All the evidence here seems to confirm if you wanted something that could pull a house down you chose the Crusader.
Not a TL12 Marathon or Roadtrain unless you wanted to spend lots of time fixing the result. 
Apologies for those who already know about the site, but the links below take you to the Commercial Motor searchable archive. This archive goes back decades and you can do your own search from any of the links below. It is a beta test site and is free to search at the moment for non-subscribers (I have no involvement with the site or the magazine).
If anyone thinks these links shouldn’t be on here please let me know.
In the link below I’ve pre-searched for “Scammell Crusader” and got some interesting results (to me anyway) to get to the articles below. Some of the articles listed in the searches don’t seem to be relevant, but you have to persevere.
Here are some examples of the results, two are dated 1971&2 (and as an aside, I’m sure there somewhere a while ago there was a question about a Fuller 10 speed box – not sure if it is relevant, but there are references to a 10 speed Fuller ‘box in a couple of these):
If you haven’t been on the site before, the actual article page(s) are on the right with the relevant section highlighted in light blue, and the relevant highlighted text is reproduced on the left. The reproduced text can be a bit iffy with the odd character missing or mis-translated. If you want to look at the actual page (e.g. to look at a picture or the original text) use the “Zoom Page” box at the top of the article page. You then have to move about the page window by draggingt he page about using the mouse pointer and holding the left mouse key down. Over multiple pages it is a bit hit and miss, but it always opens on the first page.
Hope this is of interest.
beegee:
Scammell introduces two new Crusaders | 5th November 1971 | The Commercial Motor Archive
That’s interesting the ‘280’ seems to be based on the pre MkIII turbo Eagle.It might explain some of the confusion regarding torque outputs.
In this case down to 784 lbft at 1,400 rpm.
850 lbft at 1,200 rpm by the same rating was quite a leap.
No reason why that increased output couldn’t have been maintained for post 1973 '280’s by just governing the 305’s top end.Surely they didn’t just maintain the pre Mk111 ‘280’ with its inferior torque output after 1973 ?. 
Welcome to the madhouse, beegee! Interesting finds.
Carryfast:
The article deffo says 835 lbft at 1,500 rpm and just can’t see that happening at 60t + without a torque converter like the Contractor.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=61389&start=840#p2721492I just extrapolated 295 from 305 by 311 from 320.Which showed which way the wind was blowing regards the Eagle’s potential v TL12 v ■■■■■■■■
As I said hauling a Centurion around is no mean feat with I think Israel at least choosing the torque converter equipped Contractor for that job and it’s something which I didn’t know about in the day.
It’s just confirmed my gut feeling in that regard that the Eagle was a special and second to none motor.
Just because the haulage customer of the mid 1970’s only wanted a derated version doesn’t alter that fact and you just ain’t realistically going to find an 8 LXB or a TL12 hauling a 50t payload.
That’s what I call punching above its 12 litre ‘capacity’ , not its literal weight, by the standards of 1973.
All the evidence here seems to confirm if you wanted something that could pull a house down you chose the Crusader.
Not a TL12 Marathon or Roadtrain unless you wanted to spend lots of time fixing the result.
40-odd pages it took, culminating in baby language that would patronise the most backward of brush operators, that there was nothing of any significance to choose between the 1970s specifications of the civilian Eagle and TL12, and you still come up with this sort of silliness^^^. You’re now polluting a sensible thread with it.
[zb]
anorak:
there was nothing of any significance to choose between the 1970s specifications of the civilian Eagle and TL12, and you still come up with this sort of silliness^^^. You’re now polluting a sensible thread with it.
Obviously Scammell rightly thought otherwise in terms of stress for the required output.I’ve got absolutely no intention of going any further with that argument.Feel free to post any evidence of TL12 powered Marathons put to similar work including MBT transport.