Carryfast:
Which leaves the question of TL12 Marathon v 305 Rolls Crusader and what might have been if the Roadtrain had been launched with 320 Rolls…
The 305 Rolls was in military 6x4s only. 6x4 Marathons had the ■■■■■■■ 335. Its “rival” in the Crusader was the 318 Detroit. Rolls’ effort for the civilian market was the 280 Eagle which, as I showed up there^^, made less torque than the the TL12. In those days, the Eagle was far from being operators’ first choice, as stated by former operators on this forum: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=88270&start=30
There was no 320 Rolls engine when the Roadtrain was launched. When Leyland got round to the 300+bhp market with the Roadtrain, they went for ■■■■■■■■
Carryfast:
Which leaves the question of TL12 Marathon v 305 Rolls Crusader and what might have been if the Roadtrain had been launched with 320 Rolls…
The 305 Rolls was in military 6x4s only. 6x4 Marathons had the ■■■■■■■ 335. Its “rival” in the Crusader was the 318 Detroit. Rolls’ effort for the civilian market was the 280 Eagle which, as I showed up there^^, made less torque than the the TL12. In those days, the Eagle was far from being operators’ first choice, as stated by former operators on this forum: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=88270&start=30
There was no 320 Rolls engine when the Roadtrain was launched. When Leyland got round to the 300+bhp market with the Roadtrain, they went for ■■■■■■■■
That’s a fail on every point, as I score it.
The 305 Rolls is the relevant benchmark and reference point if you want something with the potential to put out 280 hp + + at 1,800 rpm.Not 280 hp max all out at 2,200 rpm.Why would you want to go on with the TL12 in the Roadtrain in that case.
Yes we know there was no 320 Rolls at the point when the T45 was launched.
Because the NEB and Leyland in the form of Edwardes and his government handlers didn’t want there to be.
It was just as case of bolting a decent inter cooler to the 305 and increasing boost pressures. Until Perkins eventually got to 400 hp at 1,900 rpm.
That’s a win on every point v the TL12 DAF DK and TD120.
They went for ■■■■■■■■■■■ mean they then went for the L10 piece of junk because the 14 litre was too big for its output.While others went for the DAF 3300 and the F12 after Edwardes had sabotaged the Roadtrain’s launch party and with it Leyland truck division.
The rest is history and don’t remember the Eagle getting no sales for Perkins.
Finally the reason behind the adoration of Stokes is revealed, his legacy is the Triumph 2500 and the “Rover” V8. That the version you showed in the hillclimb handled like a partially set blancmange is irrelevant, a 70s yank tank had better handling than that, so yet another pointless comparison fuelled by a philosophy that offering much more power than the competition was the answer to commercial success.
You keep comparing the TD120 to the TL12 when the bread and butter Volvos of the time were F7s and F10s with less HP than the Roadtrain. A TRUCK test match at the time between an F10 and a Marathon resulted in the Marathon ■■■■■■■ all over the F10 IIRC, so it would’ve annihilated an F7.
The bread and butter offering from Rolls-Royce, at far as I could tell from the badges on grilles at the time, was the 265.
This was the competition for the Roadtrain, not F12s, not 320 Rollers. The same applies to Triumph, it was a competitor to the Granada, the Vauxhall Victor and the Rover 2300, certainly not the 5 series BMW, which was a very rare car in those days.
Was on the marathon thread c.f. has been spouting the exactly the same stuff for years come on change the record you’ve been proven wrong time & time again cheers ray
newmercman:
Finally the reason behind the adoration of Stokes is revealed, his legacy is the Triumph 2500 and the “Rover” V8. That the version you showed in the hillclimb handled like a partially set blancmange is irrelevant, a 70s yank tank had better handling than that, so yet another pointless comparison fuelled by a philosophy that offering much more power than the competition was the answer to commercial success.
You keep comparing the TD120 to the TL12 when the bread and butter Volvos of the time were F7s and F10s with less HP than the Roadtrain. A TRUCK test match at the time between an F10 and a Marathon resulted in the Marathon ■■■■■■■ all over the F10 IIRC, so it would’ve annihilated an F7.
The bread and butter offering from Rolls-Royce, at far as I could tell from the badges on grilles at the time, was the 265.
This was the competition for the Roadtrain, not F12s, not 320 Rollers. The same applies to Triumph, it was a competitor to the Granada, the Vauxhall Victor and the Rover 2300, certainly not the 5 series BMW, which was a very rare car in those days.
I`ve already mentioned everything regarding the post you just made omitting the car bit but it makes no sense to CF. You are wasting your breath or fingers
Carryfast:
This mirrors the commercial vehicle side , but the car side is where the money was being pumped to . Poor replacements for previous models , but badging Hondas as Triumphs wasn`t ideal ,then again where was the money coming from to develop new models . The world was changing and the 6 and certainly V8 engine cars were never going to save Rover . Fuel prices were rising and buyers wanted more economical choices. Again i will say i will never buy a Japanese car but the Hondas are one of the most reliable vehicles out there.
Let’s get this right.
The premium JRT division was actually profitable.It says so in the Ryder report.
BMC was the basket case you know having gone from making cars like the 3 litre Westminster to the Allegro.No surprise there.
Edwardes didn’t need to spend any money to put the already there V8 Rover into the already there Mk2 Triumph 2.5 which Stokes had given him to use for tools in both cases.
So buyers didn’t want three box styled 6 cylinder or V8 saloons.
Remind me how and why did BMW base a successful business plan on exactly that formula in the case of 325, 525, 528, 535, M5, 540 etc etc from 1977.You know the year that Stokes retired from his non influential job of 2 years previously.
You know exactly the same business plan that Stokes was following for Rover and Triumph since the 1960’s. youtube.com/watch?v=vsfc8IRw5Y4
That’s Stokes’ legacy that he left us and should be remembered for right there if Edwardes had wanted to run with it.A BMW 540 competitor long before BMW had even got to the stage of its Nikasil cylinder nightmare.
Which leaves the question of TL12 Marathon v 305 Rolls Crusader and what might have been if the Roadtrain had been launched with 320 Rolls and 13 speed Fuller to honour him instead of scapegoating him. [/quote
BMWs were of better quality than anything Rover and Triumph were building under BL , the things just rotted away and ?just like AEC they had no money to improve them .
newmercman:
Finally the reason behind the adoration of Stokes is revealed, his legacy is the Triumph 2500 and the “Rover” V8. That the version you showed in the hillclimb handled like a partially set blancmange is irrelevant, a 70s yank tank had better handling than that, so yet another pointless comparison fuelled by a philosophy that offering much more power than the competition was the answer to commercial success.
You keep comparing the TD120 to the TL12 when the bread and butter Volvos of the time were F7s and F10s with less HP than the Roadtrain. A TRUCK test match at the time between an F10 and a Marathon resulted in the Marathon ■■■■■■■ all over the F10 IIRC, so it would’ve annihilated an F7.
The bread and butter offering from Rolls-Royce, at far as I could tell from the badges on grilles at the time, was the 265.
This was the competition for the Roadtrain, not F12s, not 320 Rollers. The same applies to Triumph, it was a competitor to the Granada, the Vauxhall Victor and the Rover 2300, certainly not the 5 series BMW, which was a very rare car in those days.
Wet greasy track loads of V8 torque so it power over steered who would have thought it.
Tell us which 70’s BMW you had E3 or 5 series.I had both the Triumph 2.5 and the E3 and the Triumph 2.5 handled easily as well as the BMW as would be expected from exactly the same suspension design.
But with superior rack and pinion steering.
That’s a dry track with the heavier 2.5 motor in it and a TR8 ahead of it. youtube.com/watch?v=CCd7if8eRsU
Do you really think that a 2300 SD1 would get anywhere near that.That’s why Triumph also designed the 2600 to go in the ugly heap.
Yep semi trailing arms aren’t as good as wisbones because of the variations in camber but generally better than a live axle because, unlike a live axle, negative camber is there much of the time.
That’s why BMW copied Triumph and it’s also why a 2.8 Granada handled way better than a Capri but the Granada was also better than the Triumph or a BMW because of its wishbone front end.Not cheap and nasty McPherson struts.
The Triumph was never a competitor to the 2300 because the SD1 replaced it.Nor the 5 series because the 5 series was post Triumph 2.5 too.
While Edwardes signed up with the Japs to make front drive Jap crap instead.BMW were obviously laughing.
Yes I keep comparing the TD120 to the TL12 why wouldn’t you want to compare a turbocharged 12.4 litre motor with a 12 litre one.
The thing could keep up with a TD100 so you think that’s a good thing of a 12.4 litre motor.Let’s use it to meet the foreseeable demands of the 1980’s.That ended well.
Just like Stokes did earlier with more justification and more like he had no choice.
ramone:
BMWs were of better quality than anything Rover and Triumph were building under BL , the things just rotted away and ?just like AEC they had no money to improve them .
Good luck with finding a surving E3.You don’t know the meaning of rust unless you’ve owned one.Mine needed lots of welding at less than 8 years old and scrapped by its following owner by the 90’s.
Plenty of Triumph 2.5’s still around fetching good money too so people are voting with their wallets.Bonus points for a Rover V8 conversion.
They didn’t need any money to put the Rover V8 in the 2.5.Edwardes obviously chose not to.
How convenient for BMW.Just like TL12 only in the Roadtrain before the launch of DAF 3300.
Carryfast:
The 305 Rolls is the relevant benchmark and reference point if you want something with the potential to put out 280 hp + + at 1,800 rpm.Not 280 hp max all out at 2,200 rpm.Why would you want to go on with the TL12 in the Roadtrain in that case.
The 305 Rolls was military-only. It was, to my knowledge, never sold into the civilian market, so it was not going to end up in the Roadtrain. I think that makes it clearer than on the previous page.
Carryfast:
Yes we know there was no 320 Rolls at the point when the T45 was launched.
Because the NEB and Leyland in the form of Edwardes and his government handlers didn’t want there to be.
You sure the bosses at Rolls Royce didn’t have a say in it?
Carryfast:
It was just as case of bolting a decent inter cooler to the 305 and increasing boost pressures. Until Perkins eventually got to 400 hp at 1,900 rpm.
That’s a win on every point v the TL12 DAF DK and TD120.
10 years after the Roadtrain was launched. At the time, Leyland had a choice of Rolls 290L or its own, possibly superior engine.
Carryfast:
They went for ■■■■■■■■■■■ mean they then went for the L10 piece of junk because the 14 litre was too big for its output.While others went for the DAF 3300 and the F12 after Edwardes had sabotaged the Roadtrain’s launch party and with it Leyland truck division.
The first ■■■■■■■ engine Leyland offered in the Roadtrain was the E320 14 litre. The L10 came later.
Carryfast:
The rest is history and don’t remember the Eagle getting no sales for Perkins.
The entire lot of it is history, none of it bearing any resemblance to your fabrications, which are factually incorrect before you even start to weave your magic.
Carryfast: youtube.com/watch?v=vsfc8IRw5Y4
That’s Stokes’ legacy that he left us and should be remembered for right there if Edwardes had wanted to run with it.A BMW 540 competitor long before BMW had even got to the stage of its Nikasil cylinder nightmare…
There’s a comment under that video, by a bloke with the username Confederate Nationalist. It is you, I know it. No one else in the world could intertwine the American Civil War with the rise and fall of British Leyland, and expect an audience in the antipodean fast car fraternity.
Retired Old ■■■■:
Disc valves is the way to go………………………………
That’s exactly what I thought ROF ! But the tensile crank leverage went AWOL so I squirted some 3 in 1oil on it instead, shame it doesn’t work on everything !
Carryfast:
The 305 Rolls is the relevant benchmark and reference point if you want something with the potential to put out 280 hp + + at 1,800 rpm.Not 280 hp max all out at 2,200 rpm.Why would you want to go on with the TL12 in the Roadtrain in that case.
The 305 Rolls was military-only. It was, to my knowledge, never sold into the civilian market, so it was not going to end up in the Roadtrain. I think that makes it clearer than on the previous page.
Carryfast:
Yes we know there was no 320 Rolls at the point when the T45 was launched.
Because the NEB and Leyland in the form of Edwardes and his government handlers didn’t want there to be.
You sure the bosses at Rolls Royce didn’t have a say in it?
Carryfast:
It was just as case of bolting a decent inter cooler to the 305 and increasing boost pressures. Until Perkins eventually got to 400 hp at 1,900 rpm.
That’s a win on every point v the TL12 DAF DK and TD120.
10 years after the Roadtrain was launched. At the time, Leyland had a choice of Rolls 290L or its own, possibly superior engine.
Carryfast:
They went for ■■■■■■■■■■■ mean they then went for the L10 piece of junk because the 14 litre was too big for its output.While others went for the DAF 3300 and the F12 after Edwardes had sabotaged the Roadtrain’s launch party and with it Leyland truck division.
The first ■■■■■■■ engine Leyland offered in the Roadtrain was the E320 14 litre. The L10 came later.
Carryfast:
The rest is history and don’t remember the Eagle getting no sales for Perkins.
The entire lot of it is history, none of it bearing any resemblance to your fabrications, which are factually incorrect before you even start to weave your magic.
The 305 proved that the Eagle could handle the torque needed to produce the same power at 1,800 rpm as the TL12 did at 2,200 rpm.You didn’t answer the question how so assuming less peak torque than the TL12.
The fact that customers rightly thought that the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was too big for sub 400 hp outputs was my point.That’s why they chose the other extreme of the stupid L10.
My version of history is a lot more accurate than yours.
DAF and Volvo were the foregone intended winners of this fiasco just like BMW was in the case of the sabotage of Rover and Triumph.Then scapegoat the workers and Stokes.
The design brief for the TL12 was to provide an engine to power a lorry to compete with the F10, 111, 2800, 170-26, 1626, TR280, Dodge 300, 16.280, the Crusader with R280 and ERF, Foden and Seddon Atkinson with 8LXB, RR265 and E290 and that is exactly what they did and it gave a good account of itself against its rivals in both the Marathon and Roadtrain.
Oh and BTW the 3300 was a dog, the 2800 DKS was a much better lorry.
ramone:
BMWs were of better quality than anything Rover and Triumph were building under BL , the things just rotted away and ?just like AEC they had no money to improve them .
Good luck with finding a surving E3.You don’t know the meaning of rust unless you’ve owned one.Mine needed lots of welding at less than 8 years old and scrapped by its following owner by the 90’s.
Plenty of Triumph 2.5’s still around fetching good money too so people are voting with their wallets.Bonus points for a Rover V8 conversion.
They didn’t need any money to put the Rover V8 in the 2.5.Edwardes obviously chose not to.
How convenient for BMW.Just like TL12 only in the Roadtrain before the launch of DAF 3300.
Maybe Leyland should have used the bullet proof Stag engine in the Roadtrain if they could get hold of one between the strikes
Carryfast:
The fact that customers rightly thought that the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was too big for sub 400 hp outputs was my point.That’s why they chose the other extreme of the stupid L10.
■■■■■■■ sold loads of 14 litre engines into the sub 400bhp market, all over the world. Given that the L10 started as a 250, and never went over 350bhp, they did not have much choice.
Carryfast:
My version of history is a lot more accurate than yours.
…
newmercman:
The design brief for the TL12 was to provide an engine to power a lorry to compete with the F10, 111, 2800, 170-26, 1626, TR280, Dodge 300, 16.280, the Crusader with R280 and ERF, Foden and Seddon Atkinson with 8LXB, RR265 and E290 and that is exactly what they did and it gave a good account of itself against its rivals in both the Marathon and Roadtrain.
Oh and BTW the 3300 was a dog, the 2800 DKS was a much better lorry.
Remind us again who it was who was in charge of that brief which you say gave a good account of itself.So we’re going to need 12.4 litres of AEC’s finest to match the TD100.
The TL12 gave such a good account of itself Leyland had to drop it from the Roadtrain when ?.
No Rolls 320 + in the Roadtrain ever.It didn’t happen.Move along nothing to see here.
Not because they wanted the Roadtrain to succeed but they wanted to flog enough of em to make sure the bankers got their money back before the hand over to DAF.
Great the 3300 was a dog it obviously needed all the help it could get and it found it in the form of Edwardes at the T45 launch party.
Being a bit picky there CF, the other lorries mentioned all had more CC than the TD100, which by your definition makes them all junk, hmm I wonder what their bore and stroke measurements were?
Oh, the T45 did have a big Roller in it, the 340LI went in the French market Roadtrain badged as a 350 and the 14litre ■■■■■■■ at OVER 400hp was a very rare beast, I’d say that 90% or more were rated at 350hp or less.
Ramone mentioned the conveniently ignored Stag V8, where was your new best mate Don the con during that fiasco? I don’t know myself, but he was the Triumph man.
ramone:
BMWs were of better quality than anything Rover and Triumph were building under BL , the things just rotted away and ?just like AEC they had no money to improve them .
Good luck with finding a surving E3.You don’t know the meaning of rust unless you’ve owned one.Mine needed lots of welding at less than 8 years old and scrapped by its following owner by the 90’s.
Plenty of Triumph 2.5’s still around fetching good money too so people are voting with their wallets.Bonus points for a Rover V8 conversion.
They didn’t need any money to put the Rover V8 in the 2.5.Edwardes obviously chose not to.
How convenient for BMW.Just like TL12 only in the Roadtrain before the launch of DAF 3300.
Maybe Leyland should have used the bullet proof Stag engine in the Roadtrain if they could get hold of one between the strikes
You mean the Stag that at Stokes’ request be fitted with the Rover V8 engine even before Webster started on his OHC abortion.
Spen King said later clearly the wrong thing was done.The Stag would have been a successful vehicle fitted with the Rover V8.Who would have thought it.WW2 REME engineer knew what he was talking about.The same one who allowed Scammell to fit whatever it wanted in its trucks even if that meant going to Rolls to get it.
come on change the record you’ve been proven wrong time & time again cheers ray
