Carryfast:
But no surprise that Bedford found some buyers in Italy for a wagon which was always fun to drive like you stole it and could at least outrun the Scania,and maybe the FIAT at that time,without even needing to bother with the 435 or 475 spec motor which maybe they could have done,while still leaving some profit in the job,if only Europe had US type fuel prices at the time. .
The 8V92TA was offered in the TM from 1980-81. It was rated at 386bhp at 1900rpm and 1190lbft at 1400rpm, to BS141Au net. The 142 was launched at the same time, with 388bhp and about the same peak torque, but the 142’s peak torque was developed at 1200-1300 rpm. How would the Bedford “outrun” the Scania?
Min. SFC for the 142 was (from memory) 202g/kWh; the Detroit’s was what- 220? No prizes for guessing which would use the most fuel- that would be the Bedford, by about 10%.
If you make statements like those above, post the torque curves to support your arguments. Otherwise, people will just assume, correctly, that you are lying.
If you’d never seen what Tricentrol were doing with the TM from almost day 1 during the 1970’s you’d never know .The TM was actually offered through them in virtually any spec you wanted mainly for the drawbar market which is how the factory eventually decided to make the standard fit 8V92 option from around 1980.As I remember that standard option was actually rated at close enough to 400 hp to make no difference and peak torque was at 1,100 not 1,400 which is why the Italians painted 400 cv across the front not 386 not surprising considering it’s 475 potential at the time and well over 500 hp in electronic form as used in the Oshkosh HET since.
kr79:
I think the scanias gearing coult have made a difference.
No it’s just that the non believers have to make up bs like the 8V92’s so called 1,400 rpm torque peak to make their case.That’s not gearing that’s power.
The Italian one quotes DIN figures, possibly gross. Oddly enough, its peaks are at different speeds to the British vehicle! Either way, the engine’s output is practically identical to the 142, so your assertion that it would “outrun” that vehicle is coglioni. By 1982, the intercooled V8 Scania was well ahead of these figures, so your “argument” is nothing.
Regarding this Tricentrol myth that you propagate, without evidence: any spanner-monkey can meddle with the injection pump, disregarding fuel consumption and durability. The manufacturers build engines with the optimum engine characteristics for their intended use. Here is a marine-spec DS14, with 800 or 850bhp ex-factory (I forget the actual figure).
If you are going to compare engines, use the manufacturer’s data, trade journals or, like Newmercman above, describe your own actual experiences. Since you have never owned, driven or worked on any of the engines discussed on the forum, your posts are nothing but fantasy.
I know there were a few people who fitted to fullers to early v8 scanias and they recon they realy had some get up and go and speaking from experince the 143 with the 14 speed was more drivable than the earlier 10 speed.
[zb]
anorak:
Here is the British-market spec sheet for the same engine:
1
The Italian one quotes DIN figures, possibly gross. Oddly enough, its peaks are at different speeds to the British vehicle! Either way, the engine’s output is practically identical to the 142, so your assertion that it would “outrun” that vehicle is coglioni. By 1982, the intercooled V8 Scania was well ahead of these figures, so your “argument” is nothing.
Regarding this Tricentrol myth that you propagate, without evidence: any spanner-monkey can meddle with the injection pump, disregarding fuel consumption and durability. The manufacturers build engines with the optimum engine characteristics for their intended use. Here is a marine-spec DS14, with 800 or 850bhp ex-factory (I forget the actual figure).
0
If you are going to compare engines, use the manufacturer’s data, trade journals or, like Newmercman above, describe your own actual experiences. Since you have never owned, driven or worked on any of the engines discussed on the forum, your posts are nothing but fantasy.
If they’ve got the peaks in the wrong place you can bet that they’ve got the amounts wrong too. You might not have noticed but it was actually the ‘manufacturers data’ which I posted.Those manufacturers figures being just as I remember them in the day although as I’ve said Tricentrol were doing things during the 1970’s which were well outside the factory standard options.As for Tricentrol never existing at that time,doing that as I’ve described,which went way above just ‘meddling with an injection pump’,nor at least one fire fighting vehicle manufacturer,that I worked for between 1975-1980,using the products of that factory approved modifications and development establishment,that’s as much bs as your so called posted torque peak at 1,400 rpm of a bog standard TM 4400 with the 8V92 in it as it left the factory.
Which is why there were never any refinery tenders built or ordered from my employers based on Scania chassis unlike the TM.
But luckily for Scania Bedford didn’t didn’t just put the 435 or 475 spec 8V92 in those Italian exports. Probably because the cost of the fuel would have meant that the trucks all had to be repo’d within the first month.
Worst Scania 14 litre V8s were the early 140 and non-intercooled 142. Early 140 had some water circulating problems and they were not fitted with piston oilsquirters, that’s why all of them scored pistons and liners at some point. Non-intercooled 142 had badly designed piston/liner pack, too small clearance and their block was also too weak, most of them cracked between cylinders. My father drove a non-intercooled 142 turned out to about 500 hp at the factory garage in Södertälje, he scored 4 cylinders at the same time when climbing the hill north of Jönköping when coming home. He could drive it home and warranty paid the overhaul.
Best engines were 141 and 143 mechanical, 400, 420 and 450.
Italy had a 48ton weight limit, it also had a minimum power to weight ratio that was only met by four lorries, the uprated F89, the 141, the 170-35 FIAT and the Bedford TM. There were a few TMs around, some of the bigger companies had them too, Dominichelli was one of them, their Milan yard was just around the corner from the Bedford agent (I’m sure some Italian behaviour was involved in that deal) but Bedford were very much the bit part player
The FIAT was far and away the biggest seller, followed by the 141 and then the F89. Going by what I saw with my own eyes, I would bet a fiver that Volvo sold more F89s in Italy than Bedford sold TMs worldwide (not including the military models) not just DD powered ones either, but the complete range, of which the the big engined models were the tip of the iceberg, or should that be ice cube
Now, here’s a curve ball, I remember being in Italy and having a conversation with Keith the Thief who said he had seen an old FIAT with the cab up in a yard somewhere, he said it was a two stroke, but it was a FIAT engine. I’ll ask him and see if he remembers
Carryfast:
A 1,400 rpm torque peak for the turbocharged 8V92 is just simply bs as is the idea that it was impossible to buy a TM 4400 before 1980.
This gets better and better. Those specifications were published by the manufacturer- General Motors! Do you think they would not know the torque output of their own engine, and print “bs” in place of that knowledge? The only way that would have happened is if you were in charge of writing the specification sheets! The TM was launched as a 3250 and a 4200, with the 71 series Detroit engines. Later TMs were badged 3800 and 4400 and built from about 1980. These had ■■■■■■■ NTE engines, then the 92 series was added around 1981. I don’t know the exact dates (maybe you could find some details) but the point is, it was impossible to buy a TM4400 before it was launched! This applies to most things, you will find.
newmercman:
Italy had a 48ton weight limit, it also had a minimum power to weight ratio that was only met by four lorries, the uprated F89, the 141, the 170-35 FIAT and the Bedford TM. There were a few TMs around, some of the bigger companies had them too, Dominichelli was one of them, their Milan yard was just around the corner from the Bedford agent (I’m sure some Italian behaviour was involved in that deal) but Bedford were very much the bit part player
Hi nmm. The limit (in 1975, I think) was 8bhp/tonne, or 352bhp at 44tonnes, if I remember correctly. The Fiat was launched at this output, with derated 330bhp versions finding their way to other markets. Other firms were capable of meeting this requirement: Ford’s H4234 Transcon had a 14 litre ■■■■■■■ rated at 355bhp gross. There is a Magirus V12 shown on that maker’s thread, with a post stating that this engine was rated at 360bhp in Italy. Pegaso had 352bhp from about 1972. The 140 had 350bhp gross, so i suppose an extra 2bhp could have been found from somewhere! (Note that cf’s Italian TM spec sheet shows the rated speed 50rpm higher than the British one). Berliet’s TR350 came out in 1977-ish, so I would imagine that they could have easily provided TR320s at that output in 1975 (Monsieur Saviem may know more). I remember reading somewhere that DAF sold uprated DKS’s in Italy. Oddly enough, the 1974-'79 TM4200s only had the 307 net bhp 8v71- did they uprate this engine for Italy?
Carryfast:
A 1,400 rpm torque peak for the turbocharged 8V92 is just simply bs as is the idea that it was impossible to buy a TM 4400 before 1980.
This gets better and better. Those specifications were published by the manufacturer- General Motors! Do you think they would not know the torque output of their own engine, and print “bs” in place of that knowledge? The only way that would have happened is if you were in charge of writing the specification sheets! The TM was launched as a 3250 and a 4200, with the 71 series Detroit engines. Later TMs were badged 3800 and 4400 and built from about 1980. These had ■■■■■■■ NTE engines, then the 92 series was added around 1981. I don’t know the exact dates (maybe you could find some details) but the point is, it was impossible to buy a TM4400 before it was launched! This applies to most things, you will find.
Blimey you’re right the mystery gets even worse.From memory the numbers just refer to the gross design weights and they were all available either standard,or to special order from Tricentrol,depending on type,with a variation of engines ranging from the non turbo 6V71,turbocharged 6V92,non turbo 8V71 and turbocharged 8V92,during most of the years between it’s introduction in 1975 to the early 1980’s when the ■■■■■■■ engine was introduced in order to deal with the drawbacks of the Detroit motors being fuel consumption and customer resistance.Regardless of the issues of where the actual torque peak actually was on the turbocharged 8V92 it’s acedemic because the curve was flat enough to not make a lot of difference anyway between at least 1,100-1,400 rpm.
The difference is I’m just going by memory and there’s obviously ‘some’ information out there which seems to confirm,at least some of, what I can remember over 30 years ago.
.
.The TM was actually offered through them in virtually any spec you wanted mainly for the drawbar market which is how the factory eventually decided to make the standard fit 8V92 option from around 1980.As I remember that standard option was actually rated at close enough to 400 hp to make no difference and peak torque was at 1,100 not 1,400 which is why the Italians painted 400 cv across the front not 386 not surprising considering it’s 475 potential at the time and well over 500 hp in electronic form as used in the Oshkosh HET since. 
