Just trying to think of any successful engines, which were designed in Britain, after 1970.
The Austin Rover K series gets a hammering in the popular press, but it is a paragon of virtue compared to that Triumph V8. It suffered liner precession in the larger variants, but the 8 valve 1100cc version was beautiful. None of the other BL engines were great- the twin cam 4 cylinder engines they developed in the 1980s and '90s were hobbled by their long stroke- the Italians were making a better job of it, 10-20 years previous. The KV6 might have been OK but, by that time, the world was full of good Japanese 3 litre 6 cylinder engines.
The Gardner LYT was not quite up to its maker’s reputation, only having any success in the coach fraternity, and that aided by skulduggery (somewhere on here, a mechanic relates a tale of tweaking the pump on a vehicle entered in a comparative road test, somewhere in Europe).
The Leyland/AEC TL12 was competitive, without caveats, for a decade of production.
Franglais:
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.
The Daimler engine had Hemi combustion chambers like the BMW M30.
The downside is that the heat it creates was certainly too much for the BMW’s aluminium head material and cooling and it also cooked valves and valve seats.
The Triumph 2.5 6 cylinder could more or less match that output.
All aluminium engines are relatively better than the iron block and ally heads of the BMW and the Stag the different expansion and contractions rates also causing havoc.
Liners can be problem in numerous types but no slippage problems with the Jag V12 at least the location of them is second to none.
Top Hat liners fixes slipped Rover liners and should have been designed with them from the start.
In general the downsides of Aluminium engines outweigh the upsides.If they overheat they are effectively scrap in addition to corrosion problems by reacting with ferrous components and the material is weaker so cracks easier than good old fashioned iron.
Ford knew decades ago that light iron casting was superior to ally and the idea is now making a return.
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.
‘‘Firstly the thing was massively over square so torque suffered as a result’’.It’s around the same as a Cosworth DFV. Who would have thought it. As opposed to the 200 hp 3.0 litre 6 cylinder BMC C series.Blimey it’s like the AEC V8 v the Rolls Eagle all over again.
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.
I did own a Stag, with the 3.0 V8, and it was a joy to drive.
Not a hairy aggressive vehicle but quite quick enough for real world use. Bought mine after the engine was rebuilt by previous owner. It was meant to be a Grand Tourer after all, not a Le Mans contender.
Tony Hart did tune and race them howevet
One other article I read blamed serious quality issues at BL for exacerbating the problems in it’s design. During rebuilds casting sand would come out of the block. I can’t say how true that is myself.
[zb]
anorak:
Just trying to think of any successful engines, which were designed in Britain, after 1970.
The Austin Rover K series gets a hammering in the popular press, but it is a paragon of virtue compared to that Triumph V8. It suffered liner precession in the larger variants, but the 8 valve 1100cc version was beautiful. None of the other BL engines were great- the twin cam 4 cylinder engines they developed in the 1980s and '90s were hobbled by their long stroke
Next you’ll be saying that the BMW S54 let alone Jag AJ6 4.0 litre 6 cylinder and AJ5 litre V8 were hobbled by their ‘long stroke’.
Did you read the Stag article and watch the MGC video.
Surely the Dolomite Sprint motor fits your description and could have made a 4.0 litre V8 out of that.Like the Merlin no need for twin cams to actuate 4 valves per cylinder.
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.
I did own a Stag, with the 3.0 V8, and it was a joy to drive.
Not a hairy aggressive vehicle but quite quick enough for real world use. Bought mine after the engine was rebuilt by previous owner. It was meant to be a Grand Tourer after all, not a Le Mans contender.
Tony Hart did tune and race them howevet
One other article I read blamed serious quality issues at BL for exacerbating the problems in it’s design. During rebuilds casting sand would come out of the block. I can’t say how true that is myself.
.
.Edit typo
Realistically less than 200 hp and 115 mph max and 0-60 in 11.6 seconds was abysmal for job it needed to do.
We were looking at 120 mph + and <9 seconds to 60 at this point from the German competition.
Interestingly the Merc 450 SL engine size increase was done by increasing the stroke of the 350 from 65.8 mm to 88 mm.
While BMW’s development of the M30 6 went from 71 mm stroke in the 2.5 litre then 80 mm for 3.0 litre then 86 mm for the 3.5.That should be a clue.
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
Park Royal Vehicles were part of the Associated Commercial Vehicles Group and had been closely related to the AEC since the 1930s.
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
Park Royal Vehicles were part of the Associated Commercial Vehicles Group and had been closely related to the AEC since the 1930s.
Did they close before or after AEC or at the same time .
It’s our hero Edwardes again wot dun it just like AEC followed by all the rest.
Let’s get this right AEC stops production of the Routemaster which is an essential part of Park Royal’s job and which ironically is well suited to the 590/690.At a time when its demand is about to be at its greatest.Supposedly because one man bus operation means progress.
They use the same block architecture to power a 32 tonner after the V8 predictably falls through.
RR is handed over to Vickers.
The truck and bus divisions are split for obvious reasons.( Eventual handing over their customer base to DAF and Volvo respectively ).
Triumph is toast after replacing 2.5 with Acclaim and Rover is tied to BMC making Jap crap.
The rest is history added to by Bedford and all the rest including my former employers from which Faun/Rosenbauer benefitted.
[zb]
anorak:
Just trying to think of any successful engines, which were designed in Britain, after 1970.
The Austin Rover K series gets a hammering in the popular press, but it is a paragon of virtue compared to that Triumph V8. It suffered liner precession in the larger variants, but the 8 valve 1100cc version was beautiful. None of the other BL engines were great- the twin cam 4 cylinder engines they developed in the 1980s and '90s were hobbled by their long stroke
Next you’ll be saying that the BMW S54 let alone Jag AJ6 4.0 litre 6 cylinder and AJ5 litre V8 were hobbled by their ‘long stroke’.
Did you read the Stag article and watch the MGC video.
Surely the Dolomite Sprint motor fits your description and could have made a 4.0 litre V8 out of that.Like the Merlin no need for twin cams to actuate 4 valves per cylinder.
Those O series-based twin-cams never lost that “keep the revs down” drone, to my ear at least. By the time they were being made, there were lots of 4 cylinder 16v engines around the place, made by firms who knew what they were doing, and had done for decades- Honda, Toyota, Nissan, for example.
Was the Jag AJ a success, compared to BMW, et al? If it was, put it on my list. I haven’t been interested in big car engines for years. Toyota V8 is all you need to know, afaik, in that field.
[zb]
anorak:
Was the Jag AJ a success, compared to BMW, et al? If it was, put it on my list. I haven’t been interested in big car engines for years. Toyota V8 is all you need to know, afaik, in that field.
Not too shabby at all I’ve known plenty of examples of XJ12’s being converted to the 4.0 6 cylinder.The thing is also strong enough to laugh at forced induction bolted to it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_AJ6_engine
V8 Chevy LS/LT4 has no real rivals.Last of the proper pushrod powerhouses also laughs at forced induction.
[zb]
anorak:
Just trying to think of any successful engines, which were designed in Britain, after 1970.
The Austin Rover K series gets a hammering in the popular press, but it is a paragon of virtue compared to that Triumph V8. It suffered liner precession in the larger variants, but the 8 valve 1100cc version was beautiful. None of the other BL engines were great- the twin cam 4 cylinder engines they developed in the 1980s and '90s were hobbled by their long stroke
Next you’ll be saying that the BMW S54 let alone Jag AJ6 4.0 litre 6 cylinder and AJ5 litre V8 were hobbled by their ‘long stroke’.
Did you read the Stag article and watch the MGC video.
Surely the Dolomite Sprint motor fits your description and could have made a 4.0 litre V8 out of that.Like the Merlin no need for twin cams to actuate 4 valves per cylinder.
Those O series-based twin-cams never lost that “keep the revs down” drone, to my ear at least. By the time they were being made, there were lots of 4 cylinder 16v engines around the place, made by firms who knew what they were doing, and had done for decades- Honda, Toyota, Nissan, for example.
Was the Jag AJ a success, compared to BMW, et al? If it was, put it on my list. I haven’t been interested in big car engines for years. Toyota V8 is all you need to know, afaik, in that field.
Without getting too silly I hope, how does one define success?
If an engine achieves and exceeds it’s planned design targets then it is a success. Whether it never wins Le Mans, nor pulls top gear up The Blanc doesn’t matter if that wasn’t the target.
The best “nut cracker” doesn’t involve the biggest anvil and the heaviest hammer.
[zb]
anorak:
Was the Jag AJ a success, compared to BMW, et al? If it was, put it on my list. I haven’t been interested in big car engines for years. Toyota V8 is all you need to know, afaik, in that field.
Without getting too silly I hope, how does one define success?
If an engine achieves and exceeds it’s planned design targets then it is a success. Whether it never wins Le Mans, nor pulls top gear up The Blanc doesn’t matter if that wasn’t the target.
The best “nut cracker” doesn’t involve the biggest anvil and the heaviest hammer.
I distil it down to: Were its specifications up to the mark, did lots of people buy one and was it reliable/durable? If the AJ had acceptable performance, sold similar numbers to the other 4 litre engines,and did not cost any more to maintain, it was a success, in my view. If, like many other British engines of the period, its was a bit lacking in power output, or had a reliability problem, then it was a failure.
To take that argument further, if it also started a good trend, acquired a reputation for exceptional durability, or stayed in production for ages, then the designers earned their wages, plus a bonus, for the manufacturer and its customers. Engines I put in this group are Leyland O600/O680, Gardner LXB, Mercedes OM400, ■■■■■■■ N14, Scania DS14, Detroit 71, Mack Maxidyne.
[zb]
anorak:
Was the Jag AJ a success, compared to BMW, et al? If it was, put it on my list. I haven’t been interested in big car engines for years. Toyota V8 is all you need to know, afaik, in that field.
Without getting too silly I hope, how does one define success?
If an engine achieves and exceeds it’s planned design targets then it is a success. Whether it never wins Le Mans, nor pulls top gear up The Blanc doesn’t matter if that wasn’t the target.
The best “nut cracker” doesn’t involve the biggest anvil and the heaviest hammer.
I distil it down to: Were its specifications up to the mark, did lots of people buy one and was it reliable/durable? If the AJ had acceptable performance, sold similar numbers to the other 4 litre engines,and did not cost any more to maintain, it was a success, in my view. If, like many other British engines of the period, its was a bit lacking in power output, or had a reliability problem, then it was a failure.
To take that argument further, if it also started a good trend, acquired a reputation for exceptional durability, or stayed in production for ages, then the designers earned their wages, plus a bonus, for the manufacturer and its customers. Engines I put in this group are Leyland O600/O680, Gardner LXB, Mercedes OM400, ■■■■■■■ N14, Scania DS14, Detroit 71, Mack Maxidyne.
Fair answer.
Into motorcycles at all? The following wouldn’t run 100,000km but was a stonking success in it’s own terms. A distraction from big diesels, but really (IMHO) interesting in what a “conventional” design of air/oil cooled, normally aspirated engine can do.
The Honda RC166? petrolicious.com/articles/honda-rc166
For all those who mutter about the “Jap Crap” of the 1960s, a 6 cylinder, 250cc engine producing over 60hp at 18,000rpm…
Yep, 240bhp per litre…air/oil cooled without a turbo.
Not something really developed from another design, but thought out, very imaginatively, and engineered with precision.
.
Having Mike Hailwood helped with the victories, but he couldn’t have done it on a dog.
Franglais:
Without getting too silly I hope, how does one define success?
If an engine achieves and exceeds it’s planned design targets then it is a success. Whether it never wins Le Mans, nor pulls top gear up The Blanc doesn’t matter if that wasn’t the target.
The best “nut cracker” doesn’t involve the biggest anvil and the heaviest hammer.
If the design target and premise was wrong to start with then it will be anything but a success.
If someone who likes steak and lobster is invited to a meal at an Indian restaurant for a curry the meal will be zb regardless of how good the cook is and how authentic the dish served.
More people can agree that steak and lobster tastes better than curry.
All I know about motorcycle engines is that they have an L10 life of 60,000 miles. For cars it’s 125,000 miles. Dunno about lorries, so I’m going to guess- 600,000 LOL.
Source- bloke who was working as an engine designer. Seemed reasonable at the time, about 10 years ago. The service book on my car ran out at 125,000.
For those of us who don’t do durability stats, L10 life means that 10% of them have something big and horrible happen to them within that mileage, IE 90% of them don’t. I would guess that most (>50%) of car engines will do over 200,000, if properly maintained throughout. Those PSA 1.9 litre diesels had a reputation for doing 300,000, as a matter of course.
[zb]
anorak:
To take that argument further, if it also started a good trend, acquired a reputation for exceptional durability, or stayed in production for ages, then the designers earned their wages, plus a bonus, for the manufacturer and its customers. Engines I put in this group are Leyland O600/O680, Gardner LXB, Mercedes OM400, ■■■■■■■ N14, Scania DS14, Detroit 71, Mack Maxidyne.
Surely that adds weight to the question of Rolls Eagle v TL12 and why wouldn’t the government want to knock the TL12 on the head and bring RR on board.
This might be the wrong thread and I guess speculation about past events is a little pointless but to Anoraks like me it is nevertheless interesting. Has there been a thread inviting folk to have a hypothetical go at selecting the best BL products to take forward from the 60s mergers? Which marques/models to take forward and develop?
Apologies if there is already a thread.
essexpete:
This might be the wrong thread and I guess speculation about past events is a little pointless but to Anoraks like me it is nevertheless interesting. Has there been a thread inviting folk to have a hypothetical go at selecting the best BL products to take forward from the 60s mergers? Which marques/models to take forward and develop?
Apologies if there is already a thread.
The Austin Westminster with Triumph or even Jag IRS and 7 bearing C series engine ?.Badge it as Rover along with the Triumph 2.5 estate with the new 2.3, 2.6 and V8 options.Seems better than the SD1.
Close down BMC except production of MGC also given Triumph IRS.
The XJ was a great progression from the S type so no problems with Jaguar.
Triumph given Rover V8 to put in the Stag and the 2.5 saloon.Drop the 2000 and all other Triumph range except Dolomite 1850 and 2.0 Sprint.Possibly except TR6/7 production.
AEC Pete knock off with RR 305 and RR taken in house and production transferred to AEC.Allowing more time to develop the T45 with 290 RR as standard at launch.Continue production of the Routemaster bus.That’s AEC saved.
The Jaguar, Land Rover and Range Rover models did come out of the BL fiasco and are still in demand today. The Mini of course for the same reason, the Metro was a decent little car and could’ve gone on with upgrades for many years. The MGF and the Rover 75 had potential and since this is trucknetuk the T45 concept from Roadrunner to S26 had a decent future ahead of it, albeit with some tweaks to the bread and butter 32/38 tonner Roadtrain, on this Carryfast is spot on, it needed an in-house RR engine and a decent gearbox. Everything else that came from BL was junk.
Who would have thought it. 
As opposed to the 200 hp 3.0 litre 6 cylinder BMC C series.Blimey it’s like the AEC V8 v the Rolls Eagle all over again. 