How simple do I want it Carryfast? Well for starters just the one drive shaft instead of three and some simple to access rear brakes instead of inboard mounted ones. Though what all this Rover/Triumph/BMC stuff has to do with you designing your ideal engine I simply can’t imagine? 
Pete.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
While BMW, Ford, Mercedes and Opel go laughing all the way to the bank on the basis that if anyone is brave or stupid enough to push a semi trailing arm set up into a into negative camber situation the front end has probably already gone in the ditch and a live axle has already let go before that point because it had no negative camber to start with…What the hell are you on about now? You can’t even work out the load on a conn rod. Don’t tell me you’re an expert on suspension design too?
Carryfast:
Edwardes thought they even wouldn’t notice the change to front wheel drive in the case of the Honda 820.
Having got the SD1 story 4+years out of sync with reality (“After 1975” vs. 1971, referring to Dazcapri’s post above. Ta Daz), you are now attempting to blame Mr. Edwardes for something had nothing to do with. The 800 project commenced in 1984/5, years after the man had moved on.
You’re welcome I was worried I’d gone on a bit too much. I could have mentioned how it was actually David Bache who designed the SD1,Spen King was in charge of the engineering, as Carryfast seems to beblaming him now even though if he reads the first link he’ll see Stokes saying how lucky they were to have King. I could also mention how Rover didn’t get all their own way with the SD1 because they wanted to use the 2.2 Rover engine but it ended up with the six cylinder Triumph based engine instead
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
While BMW, Ford, Mercedes and Opel go laughing all the way to the bank on the basis that if anyone is brave or stupid enough to push a semi trailing arm set up into a into negative camber situation the front end has probably already gone in the ditch and a live axle has already let go before that point because it had no negative camber to start with…What the hell are you on about now? You can’t even work out the load on a conn rod. Don’t tell me you’re an expert on suspension design too?
Carryfast:
Edwardes thought they even wouldn’t notice the change to front wheel drive in the case of the Honda 820.Having got the SD1 story 4+years out of sync with reality (“After 1975” vs. 1971, referring to Dazcapri’s post above. Ta Daz), you are now attempting to blame Mr. Edwardes for something had nothing to do with. The 800 project commenced in 1984/5, years after the man had moved on.
Apologies I meant push it into positive camber.
Everything I’ve said there is from a driver’s perspective not a bleedin design engineer.If you like driving quick cars then you need to know the limitations of a live rear axle and why negative camber in roll is good and why a live axle can’t provide it like IRS can.But semi trailing arms do have a nasty habit of jacking up into positive camber if pushed too hard unklike wishbone suspension.
‘Sports’ cars.Let me guess you think a 535 and an M5 isn’t a ‘sports’ saloon.As opposed to a 735.
You really think that the SD1 heap fitted the bill as a plotocrat’s limo like the P5 did previously or that the nicked Triumph name Vitesse made the SD1 a sports saloon either.
Spen King’s abortion didn’t do either job.
There was nothing in what Stokes said in 1971 which would have precluded the idea of a Triumph 2.6 and 4.0 V8 ‘sports’ saloon just like he called for a Rover V8 engined Stag but King not Webster refused to deliver.
It was a coup and a fait accompli by King etc having put an embargo on supplies of the Rover V8 to Triumph and deliberate misinterpretation of what Stokes had agreed to.No surprise they had to wait until Stokes’ retirement to implement it.
You think the Triumph Acclaim fitted the idea of ‘sports’ anything.Where did Stokes say he wanted Triumph to be taken into the BMC market sector.
It’s obvious that the deal between Leyland and Honda, entered into in 1978, which created the Acclaim, included Rover products as well as Triumph.Unless your saying that the 800 wasn’t also Honda based.Are you seriously suggesting that the SD1 needed a lead time of 6 years and sports cars didn’t include saloons and GT’s ( like the Stag and a V8 2.5 development ).
Only to then be knocked on the head to be replaced with a piece of Jap crap in the form of the Honda Legend with a Rover badge after Triumph had been taken into the BMC sector with the Acclaim.Why the need to replace the SD1 so soon and why was each replacement a retrograde than previous taking Rover and Triumph downmarket each time respectively.
The Rover 800 project actually ‘commenced’ in 1981 under code name ■■.All part of the collaborative deal that EDWARDES, are you reading that daz, signed Leyland up to previously.
The 800 story is all here.You got the Acclaim story and dates all wrong and you also got the 800 one wrong too.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_800_series
windrush:
How simple do I want it Carryfast? Well for starters just the one drive shaft instead of three and some simple to access rear brakes instead of inboard mounted ones. Though what all this Rover/Triumph/BMC stuff has to do with you designing your ideal engine I simply can’t imagine?Pete.
Since when did the 2.5 Triumph have inboard rear brakes.
Tell us more about how a differential delivers independent drive to each side with one shaft.That’s why they are called half shafts.Drive shafts in the case of IRS.The Jag had inboard rear brakes easily converted to outboard as in my case using late XJS parts.
What happened to the car side backs the evidence that Leyland Group was deliberately sacrificed to meet a geopolitical agenda in favour of its foreign competitors.
The TL12 v RR Eagle issue being part of that.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
… Ford Germany obviously didn’t want to turn the Granada Mk2 into a BMW/Merc 450/500/560 killer by dropping a 302/351 V8 into it.
All kamaraden together against those nuisance Anglos across the Channel and Atlantic.So the Germans and the Americans were in a pact to undermine GB? How does this fit in with your declared Confederate Nationalist credentials? Was it the other Americans- the non-Confederate ones (Yankees?)- who teamed up with the Jerries, to have a cold war against the Confederates and the British?
Ironically a Confederal Europe that allowed us to put up import controls against other member states would have helped our struggling industry.
Yes as nmm rightly said the Marshall Aid stitch up stinks in which Germany was deliberately handed everything at our expense including writing off its war debts.
America was clearly implementing a pro German/European post war recovery plan at our expense.
The ascendency of firms like Mercedes and BMW and for a while GM and Ford Germany was the result.
The fate of Leyland Group being the result of our own government’s part in that.With people like Edwardes being the puppets.
dazcapri:
You’re welcome I was worried I’d gone on a bit too much. I could have mentioned how it was actually David Bache who designed the SD1,Spen King was in charge of the engineering, as Carryfast seems to beblaming him now even though if he reads the first link he’ll see Stokes saying how lucky they were to have King. I could also mention how Rover didn’t get all their own way with the SD1 because they wanted to use the 2.2 Rover engine but it ended up with the six cylinder Triumph based engine instead
Let’s get this right Stokes said Triumph becomes the equivalent of BMW’s ‘M’ or Merc’s AMG division which translates as the… Triumph Acclaim.
Rover was tasked with making an executive limo like the BMW 735 which translates as the …SD1.
Design has nothing to do with Engineering.
Remind me when SD1 replacement project ■■ was started.Remind me who was the MD of Leyland then.
What a surprise another front wheel drive Honda badge engineering exercise just like the Acclaim previously.
Manwhile BMW are laughing just like in 1977 when the Rover V8 upgrade of the 2.5 didn’t happen which anyone with any sense thought would happen.
Then laughed even more when Leyland went full Jap ■■■■■■.
To the point where they said quick buy the firm before they change their minds so we can keep em down and out.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Not sure if you read the E290 Marathon road test Dean posted Pete but it said that you had to be very careful with the revs otherwise the fuel consumption rose dramatically unlike the TL12 Marathon which was much more flexible. Was the 265 or the 335 good on fuel?You had to be careful with the revs in so much that there was no point in going past 1,900 rpm. Where it produced more power than the TL12 did at 2,000 rpm.
It also made more torque than the TL12 from 1,200 rpm.
You’re trying to make a positive trait out of a negative one.It’s a truck it’s not meant to be driven like a race car.
It’s also obvious that ■■■■■■■ were on the borderlines of diminishing returns at such low specific torque and power outputs.
The 14 litre clearly needed to be worked much harder with more boost which it was in numerous applications.But arguably still pointless at much under the 400 hp mark.350 + was where it needed to be.
It’s obvious that the extra leverage of its 6 inch stroke could only have helped regardless.
Just like the TD120 and Eagle.
I will try and fail to explain it in plain english , The TL was aimed at fleet owners a 270 bhp engine in a no frills Marathon . If you have a large fleet then you will have a large amount of drivers. Many of these drivers have their own style of driving some heavy footed some not. The testers reported you could get good economy from the E290 but you had to have a feather foot and keep the revs down if not the fuel consumption figures rise , whereas the TL was much more forgiving with a wide rev band so the fuel consumption was consistent with different styles of driving. In other words a good fleet truck. Not once did they say the stroke was too short in the TL or that it had a lack of torque. The bhp outputs were virtually identical the performance of both was similar too but the TL was more flexible .
You can quote stroke and torque as much as you like the test results speak for themselves. Both engines proved reliable and fuel efficient if driven correctly with the TL being more flexible …
The rest is history .
Carryfast:
ramone:
It was Stokes who rushed the V8 through against AECs top engineers advice , a clear action of sabotage a clear indication of his hatred for AEC and of course the rest is history. When the dust settled and he had managed to tarnish AECs excellent reputation he had to look around the group to find an in house engine to turbocharge because they had no money left from the 500 and V8 debacles. Well they had already tried the 680 so again back to AEC for the 760 which ended up an excellent choice in TL guise which proved economical and reliable. Two factors that would be music to hauliers ears but not yours.Oh wait it was those ‘engineers’ who’d actually designed the thing not Stokes.Because they wanted to go one better than even the ■■■■■■■■ vale and vine pieces of junk.Then blame it on a bs US court case regarding a patent on stroke measurements.
In addition to AEC thinking that they needed dustcart accessibility for a 32 tonner cab.
Then we’ve got gingerfold saying it was a great motor when it’s in defence of AEC’s engineers but a piece of junk when it’s crucifying Stokes.The truth is the thing was never going to work from the drawing board stage.So Stokes made the ‘excellent’ choice of Marathon and TL12 which doesn’t seem consistent with hatred and sabotage of AEC.
Remind me again who was in charge of Leyland Group in 1977.You know the year that the ‘run down’ of AEC ‘Commenced’.
The only sabotage I’m seeing here is witholding of the Rover V8 from Triumph thereby wiping out the 2.5 saloon production.Followed by SD1 and Acclaim and 820 and launching the Roadtrain with the choice of obsolete, crippled at the design stage, TL12 or nothing and letting RR go to to Vickers instead of bringing it into Leyland Group well before that.
With obvious foreign competition beneficiaries in all cases.
While if Stokes really wanted to destroy AEC he would have closed it down at first sight of the AEC V8, 691/760.Not try to make a max weight truck engine with a 114 mm stroke work.
I thought the V8 was a project that started in the early 60s but abandoned by AEC only for Stokes to order it to be put into production .
I dont know how many times you have avoided answering this question but what problems did the 691/760/TL12 cause in operation . What reliability issues were there due to the shorter stroke
Well, well, well, there’s a Cheffins auction on the 3rd of October with loads of engines up for sale. Maybe CF would like to buy the TL12 and test to destruction . That would be after an oil analysis and a partial strip/ various checks to assess condition after outdoor storage. We can all watch the maestro at work for amusement.
Carryfast:
windrush:
How simple do I want it Carryfast? Well for starters just the one drive shaft instead of three and some simple to access rear brakes instead of inboard mounted ones. Though what all this Rover/Triumph/BMC stuff has to do with you designing your ideal engine I simply can’t imagine?Pete.
Since when did the 2.5 Triumph have inboard rear brakes.
Tell us more about how a differential delivers independent drive to each side with one shaft.That’s why they are called half shafts.Drive shafts in the case of IRS.The Jag had inboard rear brakes easily converted to outboard as in my case using late XJS parts.
What happened to the car side backs the evidence that Leyland Group was deliberately sacrificed to meet a geopolitical agenda in favour of its foreign competitors.
The TL12 v RR Eagle issue being part of that.
The Rover 2000 range did which was the vehicle I referred to, I remember laying on my back on a drive way battling with corroded ones. In simple terms then: a solid axle has two half shafts enclosed, maintenence free. An IRS has two ‘drive shafts’ using four couplings, either UJ’s or rubber/steel, and they wear out either through lack of maintenance or the grease dries out from the brake heat. Repairs cost money. We are talking about cars (Rover/ Triumph 2000’s etc) which, judging by our customers, were bought mainly by elderly retired folk as the ordinary working family man couldn’t afford them. No need for complications or high performance, BMC/Ford/ most Rootes apart from the Imp managed fine with solid axles. Of course Triumph already had that set up on the Herald/Spitfire ranges so I can see why they continued with it. Hopefully the larger cars cornered better than the Heralds I drove!
Anyway back to your engine, Dennis (Bewick) is getting fed up with waiting for it so if you want sell any then stop talking about cars/conspiricy theories etc and just get on with the job in hand! I have some paint to watch drying. 
Pete.
ramone:
Carryfast:
You had to be careful with the revs in so much that there was no point in going past 1,900 rpm. Where it produced more power than the TL12 did at 2,000 rpm.
It also made more torque than the TL12 from 1,200 rpm.
You’re trying to make a positive trait out of a negative one.It’s a truck it’s not meant to be driven like a race car.
It’s also obvious that ■■■■■■■ were on the borderlines of diminishing returns at such low specific torque and power outputs.
The 14 litre clearly needed to be worked much harder with more boost which it was in numerous applications.But arguably still pointless at much under the 400 hp mark.350 + was where it needed to be.
It’s obvious that the extra leverage of its 6 inch stroke could only have helped regardless.
Just like the TD120 and Eagle.I will try and fail to explain it in plain english , The TL was aimed at fleet owners a 270 bhp engine in a no frills Marathon . If you have a large fleet then you will have a large amount of drivers. Many of these drivers have their own style of driving some heavy footed some not. The testers reported you could get good economy from the E290 but you had to have a feather foot and keep the revs down if not the fuel consumption figures rise , whereas the TL was much more forgiving with a wide rev band so the fuel consumption was consistent with different styles of driving. In other words a good fleet truck. Not once did they say the stroke was too short in the TL or that it had a lack of torque. The bhp outputs were virtually identical the performance of both was similar too but the TL was more flexible .
You can quote stroke and torque as much as you like the test results speak for themselves. Both engines proved reliable and fuel efficient if driven correctly with the TL being more flexible …
The rest is history .
So how did it end up in as the only option in Leyland’s Roadtrain which was aimed at every sector not just poverty.
Using a 12.4 litre motor for the 270 hp ‘fleet’ sector would have been as stupid as Volvo dropping the TD100 and derating the TD120 to 270 only.
The RR could manage around 8 mpg at 38t gross and work ok at 265 in 6 wheeler rigids unlike the ■■■■■■■ or TD120.
You’re making as much sense as the Honda Acclaim Sports Car and the SD1 limo.
ramone:
Carryfast:
While if Stokes really wanted to destroy AEC he would have closed it down at first sight of the AEC V8, 691/760.Not try to make a max weight truck engine with a 114 mm stroke work.I thought the V8 was a project that started in the early 60s but abandoned by AEC only for Stokes to order it to be put into production .
I dont know how many times you have avoided answering this question but what problems did the 691/760/TL12 cause in operation . What reliability issues were there due to the shorter stroke
The V8 was a piece of madness invented by AEC’s designers for whatever reason.So they destroy the drawings and the tooling and admit the zb up and later tell Stokes what V8 we have no V8 here we stopped it at the design stage and destroyed everything.So what did they do.
Like the TL12 what other options did Stokes have.Even Stokes had a boss.
The TL12 was reliable because it’s obvious that it’s output was kept closely tailored to suit its stroke and therefore specific torque output potential without going bang.
So a 12.4 litre motor with no more than 270 hp at its disposal.Why would anyone put that in a new max weight truck design for the 1980’s and beyond and why would anyone want that capacity to just meet that output.Nothing to do with the Marathon.
windrush:
Carryfast:
windrush:
How simple do I want it Carryfast? Well for starters just the one drive shaft instead of three and some simple to access rear brakes instead of inboard mounted ones. Though what all this Rover/Triumph/BMC stuff has to do with you designing your ideal engine I simply can’t imagine?Pete.
Since when did the 2.5 Triumph have inboard rear brakes.
Tell us more about how a differential delivers independent drive to each side with one shaft.That’s why they are called half shafts.Drive shafts in the case of IRS.The Jag had inboard rear brakes easily converted to outboard as in my case using late XJS parts.
What happened to the car side backs the evidence that Leyland Group was deliberately sacrificed to meet a geopolitical agenda in favour of its foreign competitors.
The TL12 v RR Eagle issue being part of that.The Rover 2000 range did which was the vehicle I referred to, I remember laying on my back on a drive way battling with corroded ones. In simple terms then: a solid axle has two half shafts enclosed, maintenence free. An IRS has two ‘drive shafts’ using four couplings, either UJ’s or rubber/steel, and they wear out either through lack of maintenance or the grease dries out from the brake heat. Repairs cost money. We are talking about cars (Rover/ Triumph 2000’s etc) which, judging by our customers, were bought mainly by elderly retired folk as the ordinary working family man couldn’t afford them. No need for complications or high performance, BMC/Ford/ most Rootes apart from the Imp managed fine with solid axles. Of course Triumph already had that set up on the Herald/Spitfire ranges so I can see why they continued with it. Hopefully the larger cars cornered better than the Heralds I drove!
Anyway back to your engine, Dennis (Bewick) is getting fed up with waiting for it so if you want sell any then stop talking about cars/conspiricy theories etc and just get on with the job in hand! I have some paint to watch drying.
Pete.
The semi trailing arm set up in the 2000/2.5 had no relationship to the Herald at all.
It was no different to what BMW used in cars like the 535 and 635.
You were clearly referring to the Triumph because I was clearly referring to replacing semi traing Triumph IRS with SD1 live axle.You conflated Rover P6 with Triumph.
Ironically the Rover P6 being an inferior set up which rolled to the point where the police were getting fed up with their P6’s ending up on their roofs.That’s why they preferred the less powerful Triumph.
Also bearing in mind the Triumph had a 6 speed overdrive box which could be made 7.
So Stokes says Triumph is the performance division of Rover Triumph and Rover makes the plutocrat limos.
So we end up with Acclaim and SD1 and 800 and both being taken into the BMC sector.Stokes ordered that.Yeah right.
No I don’t recognise your assessment of the Triumph customer base.
The buyers of manual with overdrive 2.5 PI/2.5S saloons or estates, which were a lot, didn’t reflect your ideas and the Acclaim isn’t what Stokes said he wanted.
Nor did he say merge Rover Triumph with BMC in that market sector.Austin Rover making Hondas yeah right
[zb]
anorak:
What the hell are you on about now? You can’t even work out the load on a conn rod.
At least I knew it’s a lot more than 2 x BMEP and that big end cap bolts don’t need to be as strong as head ones and main bearing ones and why.
cav551:
Well, well, well, there’s a Cheffins auction on the 3rd of October with loads of engines up for sale. Maybe CF would like to buy the TL12 and test to destruction . That would be after an oil analysis and a partial strip/ various checks to assess condition after outdoor storage. We can all watch the maestro at work for amusement.
What would that be worth Cav ?
Carryfast:
The concept… wasn’t the same thing as the actual decision to proceed with it…
Unusual, given that that it precisely what it always is. They produce a “concept”, which is the manifestation of an idea- drawings, sketches, mock-ups, risk assessments, financial projections- then decide to proceed with it, or not. That is how all ideas become reality, from putting a man on the moon, to putting a shelf on a wall. How do you do things?
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
… Ford Germany obviously didn’t want to turn the Granada Mk2 into a BMW/Merc 450/500/560 killer by dropping a 302/351 V8 into it.
All kamaraden together against those nuisance Anglos across the Channel and Atlantic.So the Germans and the Americans were in a pact to undermine GB? How does this fit in with your declared Confederate Nationalist credentials? Was it the other Americans- the non-Confederate ones (Yankees?)- who teamed up with the Jerries, to have a cold war against the Confederates and the British?
Ironically a Confederal Europe that allowed us to put up import controls against other member states would have helped our struggling industry.
It was struggling because the Europeans were doing a better job. Backing down from the fight would have allowed the GB firms to fall further back. We would have ended up like the Soviet Bloc- making joke products.
Carryfast:
Yes as nmm rightly said the Marshall Aid stitch up stinks in which Germany was deliberately handed everything at our expense including writing off its war debts. America was clearly implementing a pro German/European post war recovery plan at our expense.
The last time you coughed up this morsel, I showed you the distribution of funds from the Marshal Plan. It showed that Germany was given more aid than GB, to cover the greater damage than Germany had suffered. Nothing sinister in that. Would you have wanted its population to suffer more?
Carryfast:
The ascendency of firms like Mercedes and BMW and for a while GM and Ford Germany was the result.
The fate of Leyland Group being the result of our own government’s part in that.With people like Edwardes being the puppets.
Made-up piffle. Have you read Edwardes’ autobiography yet? It tells you what he actually did. Given that other people were around him at the time, it would be difficult for him to lie, I would have thought.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The concept… wasn’t the same thing as the actual decision to proceed with it…Unusual, given that that it precisely what it always is. They produce a “concept”, which is the manifestation of an idea- drawings, sketches, mock-ups, risk assessments, financial projections- then decide to proceed with it, or not. That is how all ideas become reality, from putting a man on the moon, to putting a shelf on a wall. How do you do things?
A concept put forward in 1971 which wasn’t ‘implemented’ until after Stokes had left the job in 1975.
Nowhere did Stokes say that the Rover side of the partnership would be taking on the role of the Triumph 2.5 PI or the Rover 3500S.Nor either taken into the BMC market sector.
Triumph were supposed to be the M division and Rover made the Limos.
The SD1 wasn’t a credible Executive contender when even the Granada was better in terms of its suspension engineering and the fact that executives don’t want to ride with their luggage let alone a 735 and the SD1 was no competitor to the BMW M535 let alone M5.
Neither side wanted an ugly live axle hatch back coupe either executives or performance buyers.
So Leyland failed miserably and probably deliberately in delivering Stoke’s blueprint for an executive division Rover and a Performance division Triumph.To the point where the Rover Vitesse proved the sham and bad faith of Spen King.
Rover always intended to take out Triumph followed by itself with the Honda deal.Spen King and Edwardes being the main players in that plan.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Ironically a Confederal Europe that allowed us to put up import controls against other member states would have helped our struggling industry.It was struggling because the Europeans were doing a better job. Backing down from the fight would have allowed the GB firms to fall further back. We would have ended up like the Soviet Bloc- making joke products.
Carryfast:
Yes as nmm rightly said the Marshall Aid stitch up stinks in which Germany was deliberately handed everything at our expense including writing off its war debts. America was clearly implementing a pro German/European post war recovery plan at our expense.The last time you coughed up this morsel, I showed you the distribution of funds from the Marshal Plan. It showed that Germany was given more aid than GB, to cover the greater damage than Germany had suffered. Nothing sinister in that. Would you have wanted its population to suffer more?
Carryfast:
The ascendency of firms like Mercedes and BMW and for a while GM and Ford Germany was the result.
The fate of Leyland Group being the result of our own government’s part in that.With people like Edwardes being the puppets.Made-up piffle. Have you read Edwardes’ autobiography yet? It tells you what he actually did. Given that other people were around him at the time, it would be difficult for him to lie, I would have thought.
[/quote]
Germany had its whole war debt written off by the US we didn’t.
The single free market.You mean the one which took us from 3.8 mk2 Jaguar and Triumph 2.5 PI and 420 S type and XJ6 and XJ12 and Rover 3500 S.
To Triumph Acclaim and Rover 800.
While the Germans got on with M535 and M5.Which Triumph could have pre empted with a 4.0 32 valve Dolomite based V8 in 1980.If not for Edwardes and a clear agenda of sacrifice us to help Germany.
Remind us why Jaguar ran from Edwardes’ zb pile and didn’t look back.
Only to end up under Ford making retrograde < 5.0 litre V8 products while the Germans got on with > 5 litre V8 and V12 powered BMW’s and Merc’s.
That single market.
Have you got shares in German and Jap industry.
Carryfast:
Germany had its whole war debt written off by the US we didn’t.:
Numbers please.
