essexpete:
This thread would better be titled the demise of the UK automotive industry.
Fill yer boots:
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=77860&hilit=ashod
LOL.
PS welcome to the madhouse. [Edit] Willkommen nach dem Narrenhaus.
essexpete:
Good morning all. I have watched this part of Truck Net for some time, in fact so long I had forgotten that I had signed up. I am not a driver or haulier, engineer or mechanic but have found the history of our automotive industry both interesting and sad. My knowledge of our UK vehicles has been gleaned from my childhood days of the 60s and early 70s with my Father running a variety tippers and British cars. Later myself running old British built cars, and driving a few 7.5 ton D series and a TK.
This thread would better be titled the demise of the UK automotive industry. I simply do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. Our UK problems came from a series of circumstances and attitudes.I understand that the post war Marshall Plan and subsequent write off of a proportion of debt may have been a huge leg up for West Germany in the 50s and on. I am certain the main reason for that was to prevent the re-occurrence of the Germany post WW1 which ultimately provided the breeding ground for the rise of fascism and Hitler. No conspiracy to inflate West Germany just a plan hatched to avoid further unrest in Europe. Other countries benefited as well including the UK although I will concede that West Germany appears to have had the best deal.
On a slightly different tack I watch a documentary a few years ago that charted the demise of the UK’s very powerful ship building industry. The general conclusion was that a very poor and outdated management that lacked the foresight to see that to go forward reinvestment was needed with outdated facilities and tooling coupled with a semi Victorian attitude to the workforce. The latter lead to a breeding ground for self serving out of control union leaders of the Derek Robinson type. If the management had been of better quality and perhaps treated ordinary working folk better, particularly post WWI, the rise of unhelpful/stroppy union activity might not have happened.
With regard to the Leyland group in the 60s and 70s clearly there were too many marques and lines within the group all with their own aspirations. It needed management with balls to clear out the dead wood. It must be remembered that for the most part that from 1964 to 1979 the country was largely under Labour control. Couple that with powerful disruptive unions and there would be little appetite for dumping unprofitable facilities and workforce. The Heath government’s brief interjection only worsened the situation plus their print money to solve problems policy. Of course the weeding out of dead wood did eventually occur for the most part but all too late. The moves made towards the end of 70s/early 80s should have occurred by the late 60s.
I note the continual reference to the German competition but do not forget the rise of the Japanese products with cars. When I was at school they were considered a joke by the 90s they could knock many European offings into a cocked hat.Admittedly Japan received massive help post war but no conspiracy there either.
Apologies for the rambling of my first post. What I will add that I note for the very large part the contributions on this forum are very civil and often interesting and different points of view are always good. There is probably not a definitive answer to any of the UK problems highlight by this thread.
Sorry but if you think that qualifies as a rambling post, you’ll have to try harder.
.
.
.
Well said, sir.
Franglais:
SP 250 V8.
Too small for a V8 like the Triumph. 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Majestic_Major
Turner should have shoehorned that into the Dart or made the Dart to take it. 
Edit to add.
13 years of uber alles progress gets 1 hp more but less torque than the Majestic 4.5.
fastestlaps.com/models/mercedes-benz-450sel
Ramone, you and I share the same views on the quality control part of the equation, take the Marathon featured in the Astran documentary, they had a Range Rover full of parts following it, but that’s not the best example of the awful workmanship of the BL era. The full page colour advert of the Middle East special featured an interior with one blue seat and one brown seat takes that prize.
It’s said that a picture speaks a thousand words and in this case all one thousand of them are variations of the word ‘crap’ or compounded to form sentences such as the rhetorical question"are they taking the ■■■■."
Every single person in senior management is to blame for the stupid decisions made. To add fuel to that fire, the idiots that put those seats in that Marathon and those door cards in those cars were just as responsible for the demise of the group, I mean, who is going to order a new BL vehicle when you have no idea when you will get it due to constant industrial action and when it finally arrives it looks like it was assembled with a catapult in a dark room.
Honestly, it wouldn’t have mattered if RR had been brought in-house, or that Triumph’s got a Rover V8 or even their own 4.0 quad cam, or any of the other could haves or should haves, the fact that very few people within the group gave a toss, from senior management down to toilet cleaners meant that anyone with half a brain would go elsewhere to buy a vehicle, as history proves.
newmercman:
Ramone, you and I share the same views on the quality control part of the equation, take the Marathon featured in the Astran documentary, they had a Range Rover full of parts following it, but that’s not the best example of the awful workmanship of the BL era. The full page colour advert of the Middle East special featured an interior with one blue seat and one brown seat takes that prize.It’s said that a picture speaks a thousand words and in this case all one thousand of them are variations of the word ‘crap’ or compounded to form sentences such as the rhetorical question"are they taking the ■■■■."
Every single person in senior management is to blame for the stupid decisions made. To add fuel to that fire, the idiots that put those seats in that Marathon and those door cards in those cars were just as responsible for the demise of the group, I mean, who is going to order a new BL vehicle when you have no idea when you will get it due to constant industrial action and when it finally arrives it looks like it was assembled with a catapult in a dark room.
Honestly, it wouldn’t have mattered if RR had been brought in-house, or that Triumph’s got a Rover V8 or even their own 4.0 quad cam, or any of the other could haves or should haves, the fact that very few people within the group gave a toss, from senior management down to toilet cleaners meant that anyone with half a brain would go elsewhere to buy a vehicle, as history proves.
I can’t disagree with any of the above but if AEC were independent would they have ever built the Marathon or the V8 , they probably would have built something much superior with a different class of quality . Did Astran send a back up vehicle to follow their Mammoth Major , well no they didn’t need to even though it would have been much more primitive. Would Triumph have built the Acclaim , Rover the SD1 , would Jaguars reputation have gone downhill in the 70s. It all goes back to your post a total lack of interest from the majority workforce
Compare the pre ergo cabs of AEC and Leyland, the AEC cabs were the better looking of the two, of course that’s subjective, but the Marathon would’ve been a very different beast had AEC remained independent.
The V8 could’ve been built without the need to fit under a small cab and therefore had the correct engine architecture and long stroke, look at the pseudo yank cabs on the test bed chassis to get an idea of what AEC thought a cab on a high powered range topper should look like. The same would apply to the inline 6, without budget constraints caused by the BL fiasco, AEC would’ve had the finances for a clean sheet design.
I know, could’ve, should’ve, would’ve, but take BL out of the equation and anything was possible, maybe even a merger with Daf.
newmercman:
…, take the Marathon featured in the Astran documentary, they had a Range Rover full of parts following it, …
One wonders if the Marathon’s trailer contained a couple of spare Range Rovers LOL.
Carryfast:
The 7 bearing MGC lump was also anything but a lorry engine.Even the Fatherland knew when it’s hemi headed CIH wonder M30 had met its pushrod Brit match so again it had to go.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppv7rZFC1xs
If you mean the Mini another poverty heap with wrong wheel drive, instead of putting the engine at the wrong end of the car and if you liked driving with your knees level with your chin and a death trap in a crash.
Stirling Moss said it was the world’s fastest lorry. Can’t remember whether he was talking about the MGC or the Healey 3000, but they both had the same old lump up front. That is a case for the amalgamation of BMC and Rover/Triumph/etc. all by itself- Rover were already building their 3.5 litre engine, which weighed about the same as Austin’s 1.8 litre B series, yet Austin continued developing its 3 litre C series, which weighed about the same as a Gardner 4LK.
ramone:
I can’t disagree with any of the above but if AEC were independent would they have ever built the Marathon or the V8 , they probably would have built something much superior with a different class of quality .
Leyland obviously didn’t tell AEC’s designers to create the V8.
Nor the 691/760 which the TL12 is obviously a development of and crippled by the same 590 based block dimensions.AEC were an independent company when the measurements and resulting limitations of that were set in stone.
What we have with AEC is a design team totally ignorant of the importance of the leverage/distance side of the torque equation in shifting a lot of weight along the road as efficiently as possible.Our bus engine block will do fine for a 32 tonner and if we add a couple of cylinders we can go even much shorter on leverage.
While Rover and Triumph were also brought down by deliberate use of retrograde design and deliberate down market product placement just like BMC before them.
Who gained from that.
You can’t blame someone not putting in a self tapping screw holding a sun visor straight enough for your liking.Or for striking when the wage doesn’t pay the bills, let alone provide a decent standard of living for minimum hours to compensate for the prison like existence of factory work.
newmercman:
Compare the pre ergo cabs of AEC and Leyland, the AEC cabs were the better looking of the two, of course that’s subjective, but the Marathon would’ve been a very different beast had AEC remained independent.The V8 could’ve been built without the need to fit under a small cab and therefore had the correct engine architecture and long stroke, look at the pseudo yank cabs on the test bed chassis to get an idea of what AEC thought a cab on a high powered range topper should look like. The same would apply to the inline 6, without budget constraints caused by the BL fiasco, AEC would’ve had the finances for a clean sheet design.
I know, could’ve, should’ve, would’ve, but take BL out of the equation and anything was possible, maybe even a merger with Daf.
The thing with AEC was they never built there own cabs , sure Park Royal built cabs and in my opinion they were the best option but it would have been an expensive new ball game for them . The ergo one size fits all was a brilliant idea and it took some manufacturers a long time to go that way , Volvo and Scania being 2 that have adopted it. If AEC of 1962 could have stayed independent then this thread could have a completely different outlook . AEC maybe should have bought Scania or DAF at the time , i’m not sure how big Volvo were in those days but pretty sure none of the 3 were as big as AEC
newmercman:
The V8 could’ve been built without the need to fit under a small cab and therefore had the correct engine architecture and long stroke, look at the pseudo yank cabs on the test bed chassis to get an idea of what AEC thought a cab on a high powered range topper should look like
The story of the VTG Pete Knock off is interesting.With lots of unanswered questions and loose ends.How/Why/Who brought it into being.Why wasn’t it continued.
It’s obvious that whatever brought it into being AEC only had itself to blame regarding the engine options to fit it in it.
They made a reasonable cab design but what did they have to put under it other than their existing V8 or TL12.IE their engine options were there first and set in stone ?.
The V8 seems to have been a case of the wrong engine, not only driven by the pressures of needing to fit under the wrong cab, but its designers really did think that applying small formula race car thinking, ( the need to make a lot of power from not much torque by multiplying it by lots of engine speed ), to truck engine design, was the way to go.Including cav’s/gingerfold’s refences to their work on crankshaft damping to that end.
Or did they ?.
Have some important records of some ‘disagreements’ between AEC’s designers and their ‘management’ been ‘lost’ in that regard ?.Bearing in mind AEC’s previously totally opposing and accepted bore stroke ratios.Including the 590 itself.
If there is any suggestion of such then we’d obviously be talking about a very different matter giving credence to AEC specifically having been sabotaged to the advantage of Leyland not the foreign competition.
While ironically just a call to their partners at Tolpits lane to give them a 305 Rolls to try in it would have been the obvious option at that point.Preferably bolted to a 13 speed Fuller.Followed by the even more obvious resulting call to their boss at NEB to transfer Rolls into the group.
That’s the Scania 110/111 competitor sorted now we can get on with designing that 691 based V8.Bearing in mind the VTG’s Pete styling looks ( much ) better than the Scania. 
Either way I’m seeing no evidence which would disprove sabotage in whatever form ( ultimately deliberate use of retrograde design regardless of how that design got onto the scene or the specific motives ).
Also bearing in mind the question who gained from the obvious similar issues obviously taking place within the car divisions of good design being side lined while down market retrograde junk was pushed forward.Finally to the point of the Acclaim, 800 and TL12 being the chosen products to take on the 1980’s.
As opposed to ■■■■ up and strikers wot dun it.
Carryfast:
Edit to add.
13 years of uber alles progress gets 1 hp more but less torque than the Majestic 4.5.
fastestlaps.com/models/mercedes-benz-450sel
So, the European automotive engineering industry, 1945-1975, in summary:
Germany had it easy, due to loads of free investment, but still failed to design engines as well as Britain. Nevertheless, its big engines sold many more than their British rivals’. Britain’s efforts to build small cars resulted in rubbish. Nevertheless, their small car was successful in the marketplace, and stayed in production long after Germany’s.
Your opinions, as ever, clash perfectly with the actual facts.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Edit to add.
13 years of uber alles progress gets 1 hp more but less torque than the Majestic 4.5.
fastestlaps.com/models/mercedes-benz-450selSo, the European automotive engineering industry, 1945-1975, in summary:
Germany had it easy, due to loads of free investment, but still failed to design engines as well as Britain. Nevertheless, its big engines sold many more than their British rivals’. Britain’s efforts to build small cars resulted in rubbish. Nevertheless, their small car was successful in the marketplace, and stayed in production long after Germany’s.
Your opinions, as ever, clash perfectly with the actual facts.
Your last line sums him up
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Edit to add.
13 years of uber alles progress gets 1 hp more but less torque than the Majestic 4.5.
fastestlaps.com/models/mercedes-benz-450selSo, the European automotive engineering industry, 1945-1975, in summary:
Germany had it easy, due to loads of free investment, but still failed to design engines as well as Britain. Nevertheless, its big engines sold many more than their British rivals’. Britain’s efforts to build small cars resulted in rubbish. Nevertheless, their small car was successful in the marketplace, and stayed in production long after Germany’s.
Your opinions, as ever, clash perfectly with the actual facts.
So you’ll swap me an Aston Martin DB5 for a Cortina because the Cortina was the better seller so must be the better motor.
Believing and betting on your version of the facts actually did cost the farm just like believing Edwardes.
I seem to remember Tony Schmucker saying to hell with volume production.VR6 evolves into W12.We absolutely must have the Audi RS in the range too.People’s Car indeed.
It’s just that it took WW2 and destruction of Europe before the uber alles lot suddenly realised that a Beetle was a zb exchange for 40 hours per week in a factory making Merc limos for the elite.
The Brits would just have to pay for it they won’t mind driving a Mini.
^^^I’ll have the DB. Don’t understand any of the rest of it.
Back to engine design, because that is the title you gave the thread- do you know the peak cylinder pressure, at maximum torque, in any lorry engine?
Carryfast:
Franglais:
SP 250 V8.Too small for a V8 like the Triumph.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Majestic_MajorTurner should have shoehorned that into the Dart or made the Dart to take it.
Hmmm.
Triumph V8 145hp and 190kg 3.0litre.
Daimler V8 140hp, 190kg, from just 2.5litre. (From 1959)
.
If
But
Maybe
.
Rover 3,500 started at
158hp, 170kg and 3.5litre.
Being all alloy that seemed the way to go, but the number of posts on Range Rover sites about slipped liners, one might think otherwise?
.
.
Edit to add
driving.ca/triumph/auto-news/en … -ever-made
This seems interesting.
@Franglais that is an interesting link about the Stag engine. It does seem that the engine should have been put in a sack and tossed in the nearest deep water. So many aspects flawed.
essexpete:
@Franglais that is an interesting link about the Stag engine. It does seem that the engine should have been put in a sack and tossed in the nearest deep water. So many aspects flawed.
Or attach a chain to it and use it to secure boats in that deep water. Probably a good idea to keep it in the sack, especially if it’s waterproof so as to stop it oxidizing.
[zb]
anorak:
^^^I’ll have the DB. Don’t understand any of the rest of it.Back to engine design, because that is the title you gave the thread- do you know the peak cylinder pressure, at maximum torque, in any lorry engine?
You said that production numbers matter.
Let’s just say a lot more than 2 x BMEP and obviously more force applied to the con rod with more piston area at any equivalent cylinder pressure.Torque is a measure of force x distance.Less distance then more force will need to be applied to compensate.More force means more fuel needed and more stress applied to the piston/con rod assembly.
How can peak cylinder pressures be the same in a forced induction engine v NA.
How can equivalent specific torque be obtained with 7% less leverage and less than 5% more piston area without higher cylinder pressures to compensate for the net deficit in leverage.
Now let’s make it 14% less leverage in the case of the TL12’s 142 mm v 162 mm stroke of the MX.