The Carryfast engine design discussion

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

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.

[retired_old_fart]

coomsey:

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 !

I thought my comment was just as sensible as some of the others.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
No Rolls 320 + in the Roadtrain ever.It didn’t happen.Move along nothing to see here.
.

On the contrary, the 350Ti Rolls was adopted as the standard engine, by 1987. They even badge-engineered it for the job, calling it the Leyland 800.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
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.

We know that the Rolls had a proper 290 hp at 1,950 rpm available as of 1977 which was obviously better than the TL12’s 280 at 2,200.That would have done the job.
So we’ve got an engine of 12 litres which can do virtually anything the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ can for most needs.It can do it at less rpm than the TL12 so let’s get Rolls on board before Vickers gets em.

As for the Stag the Don said put the Rover V8 in it from the start.The word used by King to describe Stokes’ reaction was consternation when Webster said we’re going to make our own.As it turned out cash starved abortion and Webster admitted it.

As did Spen King regarding not using the Rover eventually.After him telling Triumph he ‘couldn’t’ ( wouldn’t ) supply them with the Rover motors which supposedly wouldn’t ‘fit’.

It’s obvious that the Stag V8 needed to be a 4 litre 32 valve development of the Dolomite Sprint engine if they must make their own.No cash for that so why bother.Which proves that Stokes wasn’t the authoritarian that Markland was.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
No Rolls 320 + in the Roadtrain ever.It didn’t happen.Move along nothing to see here.
.

On the contrary, the 350Ti Rolls was adopted as the standard engine, by 1987.

You really don’t get sarcasm.

Should have boosted the TL12 to 320 at less than 2000 rpm just for the laugh.

[newmercman]

I’m with you 100% on the terrible decision not to bring RR on board, I love a Dolomite Sprint too and as you say a V8 version of the 16V 2.0 four would’ve been spectacular. Imagine the sound of it with a quartet of 40s nestling in the Vee, an easy 90hp per litre, wrapped up on a Stag body, that would’ve given ze Germans, Italians and Yanks a kick in the nuts.

[ramone]

If you havent seen this before look on the link below , they have Triumph, Rover , Jaguar, Bentley , Fords and many more old British cars all up for auction . They have a few commercials too an Atki , a Leyland Beaver and an AEC Monarch plus more. Ive been there a couple of times and its a great place to visit. Unfortunately the museum and cars on show are out of bounds at the moment due to covid 19. Theres a show on Quest covering 2 full series on this place and the family owned business must be many peoples dream. He even owns his own pub which he opens when he finishes work and you serve yourself heaven
mathewsons.co.uk/
Just to note the last version of the Triumph 2000/2500s and the Rover 2000/2200/3500s were imho excellent cars which BL never improved on now where have we heard that before.
Daimler and Jaguar also had big issues with reliability and rust in the 70s and part of the 80s , whereas the Austin offerings enough said

[carryfast]

ramone:
Jaguar also had big issues with reliability and rust in the 70s and part of the 80s

My last of the Leyland made early 1980’s XJ12’s is approaching its 40th birthday.

Let’s get this right.
1977.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … olls-royce
12.1 litres.A real 290 hp unlike the ■■■■■■■ ‘290’.At 1,950 rpm.We also know there is a lot more potential for more contained in it.
Piston speed 1944 feet per minute.

v 12.4 litres less than 280 hp at 2,200 rpm.
Piston speed 2049 feet per minute.

Why is it around 2 years later we put the latter in our new vehicle design and the NEB government quango, ultimately controlling/owning both manufacturers, allows the former’s manufacturer to be handed over to …Vickers.

Remind me when Stokes retired and Edwardes took over Leyland Group and who had been the boss of NEB before that point.Also bearing in mind the ‘run down’ of AEC which ‘commenced’ in… 1977.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
I’m with you 100% on the terrible decision not to bring RR on board.

The smoking gun is before the Roadtrain’s launch up to 1979 the RR was effectively an ‘in house’ engine just like TL12 because both Leyland and Rolls were ultimately owned by and controlled by the NEB/Government.My guess is DAF at least were zbing themselves at that point.Enter Edwardes in '77 and before that as boss of NEB.

[franglais]

Piston instantaneous acceleration: equation 15.
hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01305936/document

Credit to
Hailemariam Nigus. Kinematics and Load Formulation of Engine Crank Mechanism. Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering Journal, Magnolithe, 2015, ff10.13140/RG.2.1.3257.1928ff. ffhal-01305936f

Just slip in the relevant dimensions and you`ll have the acceleration at TDC.
With the mass of piston/small-end/con-rod assembly for your engine known, just use f=ma.
.
I would suggest that any back pressure from exhaust, and any pressure from turbo, should be ignored as they are not guaranteed, so should be discounted. Err to safety.

[carryfast]

Franglais:
Piston instantaneous acceleration: equation 15.
hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01305936/document

Credit to
Hailemariam Nigus. Kinematics and Load Formulation of Engine Crank Mechanism. Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering Journal, Magnolithe, 2015, ff10.13140/RG.2.1.3257.1928ff. ffhal-01305936f

Just slip in the relevant dimensions and you`ll have the acceleration at TDC.
With the mass of piston/small-end/con-rod assembly for your engine known, just use f=ma.
.
I would suggest that any back pressure from exhaust, and any pressure from turbo, should be ignored as they are not guaranteed, so should be discounted. Err to safety.

It’s all moot because we know that the max tensile load on the piston and rod assembly can’t possibly exceed the tensile strength of the big end cap fasteners.
Which obviously don’t need to have the strength of the main bearing cap and cylinder head fastenings.
We also know that the piston speed of the RR at 290 hp - 400 hp was less than that of the TL12’s at less than 280 hp max.

[cav551]

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
No Rolls 320 + in the Roadtrain ever.It didn’t happen.Move along nothing to see here.
.

On the contrary, the 350Ti Rolls was adopted as the standard engine, by 1987.

You really don’t get sarcasm.

Should have boosted the TL12 to 320 at less than 2000 rpm just for the laugh.

I saw what you did there, because the website as sometimes happens, hasn’t recorded your edit from ‘1800rpm’ to ‘at less than 2000 rpm’.

[carryfast]

cav551:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
No Rolls 320 + in the Roadtrain ever.It didn’t happen.Move along nothing to see here.
.

On the contrary, the 350Ti Rolls was adopted as the standard engine, by 1987.

You really don’t get sarcasm.

Should have boosted the TL12 to 320 at less than 2000 rpm just for the laugh.

I saw what you did there, because the website as sometimes happens, hasn’t recorded your edit from ‘1800rpm’ to ‘at less than 2000 rpm’.

I’m sure the RR ‘350’ could easily make ‘320’ at 1,800 rpm ?.But let’s at least give the poor AEC motor a chance we’ll settle for 320 at 1,950.Are there any surviving examples around of which their owners would let us try it ?.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

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.

Well you just answered your own statement ,the group have a suitable engine in the Rover V8 but decide to build another V8 at a cost . Who allowed this to happen who was in charge , why didnt they pick up on the overheating problems at Triumph. Maybe the money could have been used on developing new models . The whole car group was a shambles and throw in regular industrial disputes it was a recipe for disaster ..... and the rest is history so "they" say The Triumph Dolomite Sprints , the 2000s and 2500s were more than a match for anything Ford and Vauxhall were producing , as were the Rover 2000s 2200s and 3500s . The replacements were where the rot set in . Having said that i borrowed a Rover 214 in 96 and 4 of us went to Monaco in it , we filled up in Bradford and were well below Paris before we first refuelled ,the car never missed a beat . Unlike 4 of our friends who made the same trip in a Peugoet 605 , more room more comfort more fuel and a ■■■■■■ cat by the end of the return journey , i wasn`t keen on going in the Rover but was very surprised how well it performed .

[dazcapri]

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.

Well you just answered your own statement ,the group have a suitable engine in the Rover V8 but decide to build another V8 at a cost . Who allowed this to happen who was in charge , why didnt they pick up on the overheating problems at Triumph. Maybe the money could have been used on developing new models . The whole car group was a shambles and throw in regular industrial disputes it was a recipe for disaster ..... and the rest is history so "they" say The Triumph Dolomite Sprints , the 2000s and 2500s were more than a match for anything Ford and Vauxhall were producing , as were the Rover 2000s 2200s and 3500s . The replacements were where the rot set in . Having said that i borrowed a Rover 214 in 96 and 4 of us went to Monaco in it , we filled up in Bradford and were well below Paris before we first refuelled ,the car never missed a beat . Unlike 4 of our friends who made the same trip in a Peugoet 605 , more room more comfort more fuel and a [zb] cat by the end of the return journey , i wasn`t keen on going in the Rover but was very surprised how well it performed .
[/quote]
It wasn’t fitted because the Triumph engineers told management it wouldn’t fit, there V8 was nearly finished and they didn’t want there work to be thrown away. They also considered Rover to be a rival and didn’t wsnt to use a rivals engines. I worked in a Rover dealers in the late 80’s early 90’s and the 214’s were great little cars. The Triumph Acclaim was a good second hand seller at the time, if you click on Carryfast’s own link it was the 8th best selling car and BL’s least warrantied car.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
I’m sure the RR ‘350’ could easily make ‘320’ at 1,800 rpm ?.But let’s at least give the poor AEC motor a chance we’ll settle for 320 at 1,950.Are there any surviving examples around of which their owners would let us try it ?.

The TL12 fitted to the Roadtrain made its 280bhp at 2,000rpm, and 860lbft at 1200rpm. If the 290L Rolls was any more powerful than that, the margin would have been minimal.

archive.commercialmotor.com/page … y-1980/122

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:
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.

Well you just answered your own statement ,the group have a suitable engine in the Rover V8 but decide to build another V8 at a cost . Who allowed this to happen who was in charge , why didnt they pick up on the overheating problems at Triumph. Maybe the money could have been used on developing new models . The whole car group was a shambles and throw in regular industrial disputes it was a recipe for disaster ..... and the rest is history so "they" say The Triumph Dolomite Sprints , the 2000s and 2500s were more than a match for anything Ford and Vauxhall were producing , as were the Rover 2000s 2200s and 3500s . The replacements were where the rot set in . Having said that i borrowed a Rover 214 in 96 and 4 of us went to Monaco in it , we filled up in Bradford and were well below Paris before we first refuelled ,the car never missed a beat . Unlike 4 of our friends who made the same trip in a Peugoet 605 , more room more comfort more fuel and a [zb] cat by the end of the return journey , i wasn`t keen on going in the Rover but was very surprised how well it performed .

A bit like the TL12 Stokes was given no choice at the end of the day.At least getting into a fight with Spen King who might have been right about insufficient supplies of the Rover V8 to cover both Triumph and Rover/Ranger Rover’s needs.Or who might have been sandbagging to protect the interests of his own division to the detriment of JRT as a whole.

The fact that he admitted later that the Stag should have had the Rover in it suggests a guilty concience.So does the fact that it was used in the MGBV8 and Morgan plus 8 at the point when the Stag was being developed with no ‘supply’ issues.

Also don’t believe that Webster would have chosen all the aggro of a less powerful far too small pointless 16 valve 3.0 litre OHC V8 design all the downsides and no upsides.He himself said he wanted to use the 2.5 6 in it and develop a better V8 version later ( eventual 4.0 litre 32 valve Sprint based version ? ) but it was Leyland US sales division that said V8 at launch or nothing. But still no real reason provided as to why the Rover V8 was turned down or by who but King is the one who mentions ‘supply’ as being an issue.

So Stokes is caught between a rock and a hard place Leyland US want a V8.Stokes said use the Rover V8 from the start.
Spen King won’t allow Triumph to have it based on spurious ‘supply’ issues.

How could Stokes have argued.Obviously being a gamble as to the credibility or not of King’s bs and getting that call wrong could have destroyed Rover/Range Rover production.

Then King also blamed Webster for supposedly making the Stag unable to take it when everyone knows that was bs including King himself and he eventually said as much.

Also the two different excuses don’t add up we know it would fit and Webster never actually said it wouldn’t.No adequate explanation as to why Rover refused to give Webster carte blanche to then take as many as he needed.

Oh wait a successful Rover V8 engined Stag would have inevitably led to calls why not also put it in the 2.5 saloon which the Stag was based on.Thereby creating a superior competitor to the Rover P6 3500 and arguably the eventual SD1.

In either case the aim of the exercise wasn’t to create a car which could do Bradford to beyond Paris on a tankful of fuel. The most fun I’ve ever had driving any car was getting through almost 20 gallons of fuel in 35 minutes over the distance between Basle and Kehl.

Yep ‘the replacements’ was where the rot set in.Not so much the SD1 but the front drive Hondas were the final nail.BMW must have been laughing all the way to the bank.
Just like DAF when they knew the T45 was going to be launched with the TL12 in it.
Both debacles were all about Edwardes’ tenure as boss not Stokes’.

[carryfast]

dazcapri:
It wasn’t fitted because the Triumph engineers told management it wouldn’t fit, there V8 was nearly finished and they didn’t want there work to be thrown away. They also considered Rover to be a rival and didn’t wsnt to use a rivals engines. I worked in a Rover dealers in the late 80’s early 90’s and the 214’s were great little cars. The Triumph Acclaim was a good second hand seller at the time, if you click on Carryfast’s own link it was the 8th best selling car and BL’s least warrantied car.

Why would Spen King have needed to mention ‘supply issues’ if Webster had stated it wouldn’t fit ?.
Yes rivalry on the part of Rover not Triumph.Nothing to do with the Stag but all about protecting the P6 and later Spen King’s ugly live axle SD1 abortion.

If a front drive Honda based zb box was the right car for the job then that’s what BMW would have chosen for its 3 series and 5 series.
Rover and Triumph were premium division players.Leyland didn’t need another BMC on its hands.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
I’m sure the RR ‘350’ could easily make ‘320’ at 1,800 rpm ?.But let’s at least give the poor AEC motor a chance we’ll settle for 320 at 1,950.Are there any surviving examples around of which their owners would let us try it ?.

The TL12 fitted to the Roadtrain made its 280bhp at 2,000rpm, and 860lbft at 1200rpm. If the 290L Rolls was any more powerful than that, the margin would have been minimal.

archive.commercialmotor.com/page … y-1980/122

It actually says 270 hp at 2000 rpm.Good luck with 290, let alone 320, at 1,950.It didn’t need a crystal ball to know that they’d be needing the 320 if the Roadtrain was to compete with the 3300 let alone F12.

Strange why the ‘350’ seems to have been limited to French export sales much like the TM was nobbled previously in the UK market.

[cav551]

Quote CAV 551:I saw what you did there, because the website as sometimes happens, hasn’t recorded your edit from ‘1800rpm’ to ‘at less than 2000 rpm’.
[/quote]
Quote Carryfast" "I’m sure the RR ‘350’ could easily make ‘320’ at 1,800 rpm ?.But let’s at least give the poor AEC motor a chance we’ll settle for 320 at 1,950.Are there any surviving examples around of which their owners would let us try it ?.
[/quote]
That depends on the definition of easily. If the RR 350 is like the RR 340 LI (which falls short) and then it doesn’t quite make 350 and needs 1950 rpm then the answer is just.