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 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.
[/quote]
Fair enough let’s call it 310 at 1,800.Which just leaves the question of finding a spare TL12 sitting around that we can try for 310 at 1,800.Bigger turbo and an inter cooler it’ll be fine.
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.
Nonsense.
A designer can make the fasteners & bearings as strong OR as weak as they choose. An engine can be designed with heavy long lasting components or lighter ones with a shorter expected life.
Ferrari and Foden have different design criteria. Both have their uses.
The 214 was aimed at families not speed its a good job you wasn’t in charge of BL because every car would have a V8 Rover engine in .
It’s already been mentioned that Leyland developed a 320 TL but didn"t put it out for sale
cav551:
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.
Fair enough let’s call it 310 at 1,800.Which just leaves the question of finding a spare TL12 sitting around that we can try for 310 at 1,800.Bigger turbo and an inter cooler it’ll be fine.
I think the 350 was a 340Li, with a few more horses on the badge for the French market. The UK model was 1734, but it it had become a 1935 by the time it got to Dover.
The TL12 would easily make 300+ bhp, with an air-to-air charge cooler. It might need moving back in the chassis, to give the extra 100 or so mm in front of the radiator (which might need to have a denser core, to cope with the higher temperature?).
cav551:
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.
Fair enough let’s call it 310 at 1,800.Which just leaves the question of finding a spare TL12 sitting around that we can try for 310 at 1,800.Bigger turbo and an inter cooler it’ll be fine.
I think the 350 was a 340Li, with a few more horses on the badge for the French market. The UK model was 1734, but it it had become a 1935 by the time it got to Dover.
The TL12 would easily make 300+ bhp, with an air-to-air charge cooler. It might need moving back in the chassis, to give the extra 100 or so mm in front of the radiator (which might need to have a denser core, to cope with the higher temperature?).
Not a problem finding a TL12, there are still quite a few about, either in restored Marathons and T45s, or in scrap yards. If you are so inclined you can also try the twin-turbocharged AVT 810 V8 at 350 bhp at the same time; two of which exist in a private collection.
gingerfold:
Not a problem finding a TL12, there are still quite a few about, either in restored Marathons and T45s, or in scrap yards. If you are so inclined you can also try the twin-turbocharged AVT 810 V8 at 350 bhp at the same time; two of which exist in a private collection.
Wow! Were the V8s built by AEC/Leyland, or created by an enthusiast? Does the collector allow observers to see/hear them, by appointment?
Regarding “What If?”, I think it is a valid part of the preservation scene. The Unic collector from Switzerland (who has recently started posting on TNUK), has built up a perfect 370, a model which never made it into production. We’ve all spent many hours of our lives discussing the possibilities of more developed British Leyland products. Surely we could use our combined expertise to make them manifest?
Franglais:
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.
Nonsense.
A designer can make the fasteners & bearings as strong OR as weak as they choose. An engine can be designed with heavy long lasting components or lighter ones with a shorter expected life.
Ferrari and Foden have different design criteria. Both have their uses.
The issue was the suggestion that tensile loads match those of compressive loads on the piston rod assembly.Which is bs.
So tell us under what circumstances can the tensile load on the piston and rod assembly possibly exceed that of the tensile strength of the big end bearing cap fasteners ?.
Also why would you need to make the main bearing cap and cylinder head fastenings stronger than the big end bearing cap fastenings ?.
Also bearing in mind that more leverage equals more specific torque for equivalent force on the piston.
To the point where the resulting engine speed reduction can outweigh piston speed increase.
While any difference is obviously not enough to tear the con rod apart under tensile load regardless.
ramone:
The 214 was aimed at families not speed its a good job you wasn’t in charge of BL because every car would have a V8 Rover engine in .
It’s already been mentioned that Leyland developed a 320 TL but didn"t put it out for sale
Rover and Triumph were never meant to be aimed at the extreme poverty end of the market that was BMC’s job.I didn’t say V8 option only.
The Triumph 2.5 estate was a great ‘family’ car.You do know that the 2.3 and 2.6 engines put in the SD1 were actually developed by Triumph not Rover and tested in the 2.5 saloon not the SD1.
Ironically BMC was also taken down market previously in a similar way from making Cambridge and Westminster to 1100 and Allegro.That ended well.
A 300 + TL12 wasn’t marketed for a reason.270 hp at 2,000 rpm as a starting point and 142 mm stroke v 152 mm says why.Seeing 300 + on the dyno for a few seconds, even assuming that was at less than 2,000 rpm doubtful, isn’t the same thing as signing it off as a reliable output for production.
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.
Nonsense.
A designer can make the fasteners & bearings as strong OR as weak as they choose. An engine can be designed with heavy long lasting components or lighter ones with a shorter expected life.
Ferrari and Foden have different design criteria. Both have their uses.
Look at a speedway rider, he probably uses 3 bikes and 6 engines during a meeting, saving one for the final if he makes the final 8/4
[zb]
anorak:
The TL12 would easily make 300+ bhp, with an air-to-air charge cooler. It might need moving back in the chassis, to give the extra 100 or so mm in front of the radiator (which might need to have a denser core, to cope with the higher temperature?).
We’re looking for 300 + at 1,800 rpm.We won’t need to worry about any of that cooling bollox for an egine dyno run from a water tower.
While we already know that your idea of cylinder pressures and resulting loads on the piston and rod assembly and main bearing and head fastenings/seal is that they can’t possibly be more than 2 x BMEP.
You also don’t do the distance side of the force x distance equation school of engine design to alleviate those loads.
All we need to do now is wait for cav to find us a spare TL12 sitting around somewhere to try it and if it blows up in the process you can pick up the tab.
gingerfold:
Not a problem finding a TL12, there are still quite a few about, either in restored Marathons and T45s, or in scrap yards. If you are so inclined you can also try the twin-turbocharged AVT 810 V8 at 350 bhp at the same time; two of which exist in a private collection.
^ Great go for it.We want to see them boosted to 300 + at 1,800 rpm in both cases…to prove that Stokes actually made the right call for the Marathon and taking it out of the Roadtrain was just another act of sabotage by Edwardes.
[zb]
anorak:
We’ve all spent many hours of our lives discussing the possibilities of more developed British Leyland products. Surely we could use our combined expertise to make them manifest?
That’s what I did with my car.The XJ12 should have been developed with the longer stroke 6.0 L crank shaft much sooner than it was and given a manual gearbox option.
I’ve also shown the potential of the Rover V8 and Triumph combination taking Triumph forward into the 1980’s.I don’t think that there’s any doubt that’s where Leyland would have gone if Stokes and Webster had been given the option and without the Spen King and Michael Edwardes coup which took place in terms of crippling the Stag and replacement of the 2.5 with the retrograde SD1 let alone the Acclaim and 820.
Trucks the same.
An in house Leyland Eagle could easily have evolved into something like the MX 13 far sooner and no need for the involvement of DAF or Paccar.( So try to fit an MX 13 and an 18 speed Fuller in a Roadtrain for me )
TL12 and AEC V8 unfortunately no hopers other than for some explosive fun on 5th November.
gingerfold:
We’ve all spent many hours of our lives discussing the possibilities of more developed British Leyland products. Surely we could use our combined expertise to make them manifest?
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.
How can you compare the Acclaim to a 3 series BMW it was to replace the Dolomite/Maxi/Marina range.You’re own link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Acclaim
clearly states that it was the least warrantied BL car and was the 7/8th best selling car of 1982/83,from a business point of view that’s a good result The tie-in with Honda was years ahead of it’s time,look at car companies now they all share platforms i.e. Fiat 500/Ford KA and Toyota Yaris/Citroen C1/Peugeot 107
The Rover engine was turned down by Triumph who said it wouldn’t fit so if that’s the reason Triumph failed it was there own fault en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Stag both state this so you can argue all you like it’s there in print,
As for Edwards hating Triumph so much that’s just rubbish his own personal car was a Triumph estate,besides it was Stokes who announced the Death knell for large Triumph salons (in 1973) lancasterinsurance.co.uk/ne … 2500-mkii/
again it’s in print 1973 Stokes clearly saying Triumph would no longer compete directly with Rover. Even if he hadn’t do you seriously think a car designed and launched in the early 60’s with an engine designed in the late 50’s and launched in 1960 would take the company into the future,what’s next the T45 should have been steam powered.
[zb]
anorak:
I think the 350 was a 340Li, with a few more horses on the badge for the French market. The UK model was 1734, but it it had become a 1935 by the time it got to Dover.
I said this a while back, do pay attention [emoji1787]
[zb]
anorak:
We’ve all spent many hours of our lives discussing the possibilities of more developed British Leyland products. Surely we could use our combined expertise to make them manifest?
That’s what I did with my car.The XJ12 should have been developed with the longer stroke 6.0 L crank shaft much sooner than it was and given a manual gearbox option.
I’ve also shown the potential of the Rover V8 and Triumph combination taking Triumph forward into the 1980’s.I don’t think that there’s any doubt that’s where Leyland would have gone if Stokes and Webster had been given the option and without the Spen King and Michael Edwardes coup which took place in terms of crippling the Stag and replacement of the 2.5 with the retrograde SD1 let alone the Acclaim and 820.
Trucks the same.
An in house Leyland Eagle could easily have evolved into something like the MX 13 far sooner and no need for the involvement of DAF or Paccar.( So try to fit an MX 13 and an 18 speed Fuller in a Roadtrain for me )
TL12 and AEC V8 unfortunately no hopers other than for some explosive fun on 5th November.
Where does it say that Spen King and Michael Edwardes were responsible for the Triumph V8 crippling the Stag? I assume that’s what you meant. Edwardes’ brief was rationalisation, not duplication. The Triumph engineers designed the Stag so that it would accept their V8, but not the Rover one. That’s what I thought. I’m sure I read it in Edwardes’ autobiography? Why don’t you just read it, instead of attributing your made-up nonsense to him?
Of course, with hindsight, a late 1970s merger of Rolls Royce Diesels and Leyland Vehicles might have worked, but look at the options they had at the time:
The TL12 was, if anything, a more highly-respected engine than the Eagle. The T45’s introduction was delayed, first from 1975, then from 1978. The TL12 was a new, in-house design, intended to fit the new range. Why drop it and start again, with a different one? You must see they had to play with the cards in their hands.
Both Leyland Vehicles and RR Diesels were considered viable companies as they were.
BL was in the middle of multiple mergers/rationalisations, all of them long overdue, all of them causing all sorts of trouble. Why do another, not-strictly-necessary one?
dazcapri:
How can you compare the Acclaim to a 3 series BMW it was to replace the Dolomite/Maxi/Marina range.You’re own link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Acclaim
clearly states that it was the least warrantied BL car and was the 7/8th best selling car of 1982/83,from a business point of view that’s a good result The tie-in with Honda was years ahead of it’s time,look at car companies now they all share platforms i.e. Fiat 500/Ford KA and Toyota Yaris/Citroen C1/Peugeot 107
The Rover engine was turned down by Triumph who said it wouldn’t fit so if that’s the reason Triumph failed it was there own fault en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Stag both state this so you can argue all you like it’s there in print,
As for Edwards hating Triumph so much that’s just rubbish his own personal car was a Triumph estate,besides it was Stokes who announced the Death knell for large Triumph salons (in 1973) lancasterinsurance.co.uk/ne … 2500-mkii/
again it’s in print 1973 Stokes clearly saying Triumph would no longer compete directly with Rover. Even if he hadn’t do you seriously think a car designed and launched in the early 60’s with an engine designed in the late 50’s and launched in 1960 would take the company into the future,what’s next the T45 should have been steam powered.
How do you compare a front wheel drive Jap zb box with a rear wheel drive 1.8-2.0 litre small saloon range.At the time directed head on against the 2002 series.Wich was replaced by the 3 series which then also shoehorned even larger saloon 6 cylinder motors into them in the form of 323 and 325 to very profitable effect.
That was the point Triumph were a premium brand in the premium JRT division not a BMC wanabee.
So tell us why did BMW avoid/not want your front wheel drive Jap tie up deal if it was supposedly so good for us.
Of course Stokes didn’t want Triumph to compete with Rover.He wanted them to co-operate you know like putting the Rover V8 in the Stag and by implication the 2.5.A Triumph sale was as good to the Group as a Rover sale.If the V8 was supposedly turned down by Triumph why did Spen King need to come up with the bs supply excuse to Stokes.Supply would obviously have been moot.
Edwardes drove a Triumph estate.Yeah right he liked it so much he signed the deal which turned Triumph into a maker of the Acclaim and turned Spen King’s SD1 abortion into the full ■■■■■■ front wheel drive Honda based 820.That ended well for both firms.
As I said BMW were laughing all the way to the bank.Your articles are obviously told from the side of the pro Edwardes faction.
Edwardes wrecked Leyland not Stokes.
[zb]
anorak:
We’ve all spent many hours of our lives discussing the possibilities of more developed British Leyland products. Surely we could use our combined expertise to make them manifest?
That’s what I did with my car.The XJ12 should have been developed with the longer stroke 6.0 L crank shaft much sooner than it was and given a manual gearbox option.
I’ve also shown the potential of the Rover V8 and Triumph combination taking Triumph forward into the 1980’s.I don’t think that there’s any doubt that’s where Leyland would have gone if Stokes and Webster had been given the option and without the Spen King and Michael Edwardes coup which took place in terms of crippling the Stag and replacement of the 2.5 with the retrograde SD1 let alone the Acclaim and 820.
Trucks the same.
An in house Leyland Eagle could easily have evolved into something like the MX 13 far sooner and no need for the involvement of DAF or Paccar.( So try to fit an MX 13 and an 18 speed Fuller in a Roadtrain for me )
TL12 and AEC V8 unfortunately no hopers other than for some explosive fun on 5th November.
Where does it say that Spen King and Michael Edwardes were responsible for the Triumph V8 crippling the Stag? I assume that’s what you meant. Edwardes’ brief was rationalisation, not duplication. The Triumph engineers designed the Stag so that it would accept their V8, but not the Rover one. That’s what I thought. I’m sure I read it in Edwardes’ autobiography? Why don’t you just read it, instead of attributing your made-up nonsense to him?
Of course, with hindsight, a late 1970s merger of Rolls Royce Diesels and Leyland Vehicles might have worked, but look at the options they had at the time:
The TL12 was, if anything, a more highly-respected engine than the Eagle. The T45’s introduction was delayed, first from 1975, then from 1978. The TL12 was a new, in-house design, intended to fit the new range. Why drop it and start again, with a different one? You must see they had to play with the cards in their hands.
Both Leyland Vehicles and RR Diesels were considered viable companies as they were.
BL was in the middle of multiple mergers/rationalisations, all of them long overdue, all of them causing all sorts of trouble. Why do another, not-strictly-necessary one?
Where do you get the idea that the Stag wouldn’t accept the Rover V8.It’s effectively the same bleedin car as the 2.5 saloon ahead of the front bulkhead.You actually re posted a screen shot of a youtube example showing exactly that.I grew up which such conversions routinely being done.I stupidly couldn’t resist the give away price of an E3 BMW rot box and cylinder head made of cheese and cam gear which was an after thought instead.Oh and the 1950’s Zodiac style steering set up.
It would fit.Spen King later admitted it would fit.He told Stokes at the time there was a supply issue.Why did he even need to say that if it wouldn’t fit.Which it clearly would and did.
TL12 better than the Eagle.
Acclaim better than Dolomite.
SD1 better than 2.5 saloon and estate.
Webster wouldn’t have wanted to use the Rover V8 in the Stag even if Spen King had let him have it and Stokes had then threatened to sack Webster if he still refused to use it.
It wouldn’t have fitted even though everyone knows it fits and did fit even Spen King.
820 better than SD1.
All Stokes’ fault not Edwardes’.
There’s a pattern here.
Well this is a proper bit of well engineerd gear, Of course these Gardners did very well for me and earned me a few bob. , Of course I must admit they didnt suit every body, But like I said they did me proud, Stay safe safe CF, Regards Larry.
