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.
Design parameters for tractors, and racing cars are different.
They are also different for mass produced profitable cars needed by major manufacturers, and powerful iconic cars loved by petrol-heads.
[zb]
anorak:
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.
I can just remember a little from my stats courses.
Burn-in and burn-out failures tacked onto the ends of a linear failure/time graph.
Difficult teaching the bean counters that replacing light bulbs in a high ceiling before their normal life expectancy expired was actually costing money.
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.
You’d not produce the Mini?
You’d produce the MGC but not the MGB?
9,000 vs 510,000 approx?
I don’t knock you for liking big engines, but many make a more mundane choice.
For the BL group a strategy was needed as to what each market goal would be with just one main type for each sector/market. Cut out the cross group competition. Some marques will have to be consigned to history. They all were within a dozen years. There is one short term drawback that with customers with brand loyalty it is possible to lose that customer completely. I have no idea about marketing but I have read this.
Commercial
Heavy special haulage
Max weight transcontinental tractor unit
Local delivery tractor unit
8 and 6 wheeler chassis with day and sleeper option
4 wheeler from 10 to 16 ton
Sub 10 ton
Heavy van chassis
Light van
Initially you would have to use what is in house with the proviso that where appropriate you can out source an engine and/or gearbox.
The biggest problem was merging commercial and car companies in BL . If each commercial vehicle company had been able to run independently within the group and keeping their own profits they may have succeeded pooling their research . AEC more than certainly wouldn’t have gone with the V8 and the AV760 would have been replaced with more funds available for development. It didn’t happen so they had to work with what they had , they definitely wouldn’t have needed RR if the development funds were there
Carryfast:
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.
Design parameters for tractors, and racing cars are different.
They are also different for mass produced profitable cars needed by major manufacturers, and powerful iconic cars loved by petrol-heads.
I agree.But by that logic the customer is going to be ■■■■■■ off if he finds that even just Bernis has been turned over night into an Indian restaurant.
( Farina Cambridge/Westminster, MGB/C, Triumph 2.5/TR6, Rover P5b/P6, suddenly all turn into 1100,Allegro, Acclaim, SD1/800 ).
While an engine designed for a 32t, let alone 38t, truck ain’t going to work if it’s based on what worked great in a 7.5t bus.
Let alone let’s go full over square ■■■■■■ in the form of the AEC V8 oh and lets and get rid of the …bus production that our engine was working so well in and the customers loved because they weren’t waiting at every stop being made late for work for the driver to take the all fares.
essexpete:
For the BL group a strategy was needed as to what each market goal would be with just one main type for each sector/market. Cut out the cross group competition. Some marques will have to be consigned to history. They all were within a dozen years. There is one short term drawback that with customers with brand loyalty it is possible to lose that customer completely. I have no idea about marketing but I have read this.
Commercial
Heavy special haulage
Max weight transcontinental tractor unit
Local delivery tractor unit
8 and 6 wheeler chassis with day and sleeper option
4 wheeler from 10 to 16 ton
Sub 10 ton
Heavy van chassis
Light van
Initially you would have to use what is in house with the proviso that where appropriate you can out source an engine and/or gearbox.
May I suggest that you trawl through the “Why Did British Leyland Fail?” thread
ramone:
The biggest problem was merging commercial and car companies in BL . If each commercial vehicle company had been able to run independently within the group and keeping their own profits they may have succeeded pooling their research . AEC more than certainly wouldn’t have gone with the V8 and the AV760 would have been replaced with more funds available for development. It didn’t happen so they had to work with what they had , they definitely wouldn’t have needed RR if the development funds were there
it’s worth asking the question as to why RR never sold into the “loose engine” PSV market. Gardner did successfully, ■■■■■■■ also did. All the mainstream engine manufacturers used the same basic engine design in both lorries and PSVs: - AEC, Leyland, Gardner, Volvo, Scania, Mercedes, MAN, Renault, Detroit Diesel, but never Rolls Royce.
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.
You’d not produce the Mini?
You’d produce the MGC but not the MGB?
9,000 vs 510,000 approx?
I don’t knock you for liking big engines, but many make a more mundane choice.
The Mini was a high volume loss maker.IE it was great… for losing a lot of money fast from its maker to anyone with one stuck on the forecourt.
People didn’t buy Minis because they liked them.They bought them because of the false economy of the sell at a loss discount that the dealer stuck in the window.
Issigonis crippled BMC’s volume products so might as well close them down and leave that sector to Ford.It’s losing us money and loads of it.
Today’s classic values prove the profitability and demand for MGC v MGB.No need for the B if we can increase production volume of MGC and improve it with TR5/6 type IRS.Pile it high sell it as cheap as possible but as profitably as possible.Do we actually even need TR6 after that.We’ve got a 200 hp 7 bearing motor that we need to increase production volumes of that’s also going in our Rover Westminster P5 replacement.Why do we want to go staggering on with Triumph’s 4 bearing 140 hp 6.While Triumph gets on with designing its 2.3 and 2.6 replacement to go in the Rover 2.5/3500 estate.
Now we’re talking Stokes v Edwardes.
ramone:
The biggest problem was merging commercial and car companies in BL . If each commercial vehicle company had been able to run independently within the group and keeping their own profits they may have succeeded pooling their research . AEC more than certainly wouldn’t have gone with the V8 and the AV760 would have been replaced with more funds available for development. It didn’t happen so they had to work with what they had , they definitely wouldn’t have needed RR if the development funds were there
it’s worth asking the question as to why RR never sold into the “loose engine” PSV market. Gardner did successfully, ■■■■■■■ also did. All the mainstream engine manufacturers used the same basic engine design in both lorries and PSVs: - AEC, Leyland, Gardner, Volvo, Scania, Mercedes, MAN, Renault, Detroit Diesel, but never Rolls Royce.
I’ll have guess at this. I like a quiz.
The bus makers were vertically integrated, mostly, so they didn’t need to buy engines. The smaller bus makers chose Gardner, because they were less noisy than RR.
gingerfold:
it’s worth asking the question as to why RR never sold into the “loose engine” PSV market. Gardner did successfully, ■■■■■■■ also did. All the mainstream engine manufacturers used the same basic engine design in both lorries and PSVs: - AEC, Leyland, Gardner, Volvo, Scania, Mercedes, MAN, Renault, Detroit Diesel, but never Rolls Royce.
I’m guessing that 12 litres was a deal break point ?.
Gardner 6 LXB was a sub 11 litre motor.
No 760 or TL12 used in buses either even though they say the 760 fits in a Routemaster at least which isn’t surprising only the bore size being larger within the 690/1 block ?.
I think that the Detroit 60 series was also a case of taking away the 11 litre version choice from bus customers in that regard.
Ironically the fact that the 760 was a bored out bus motor with a shorter stroke than the 7.5 litre Matador is a clue that AEC’s bus engine specialisation helped to wreck the firm.
ramone:
If each commercial vehicle company had been able to run independently within the group and keeping their own profits they may have succeeded pooling their research . AEC more than certainly wouldn’t have gone with the V8 and the AV760 would have been replaced with more funds available for development. It didn’t happen so they had to work with what they had , they definitely wouldn’t have needed RR if the development funds were there
I don’t get your link between the V8 and the 760 at their respective design stages and Leyland.
The erroneous design philosophy is contained within the reference to the ■■■■■■■ court case.
Something made AEC’s designers jump from the 0.71 bore stroke ratio of the 7.5 litre Matador motor and 0.84 of the 590 to the 0.95 and 1.18 of the 760 and V8 respectively.
Leyland obviously had no input into that decision.AEC’s designers were obviously fixated on the idea of the big bore and short stroke philosophy.Why else would the ■■■■■■■ court case even have mattered to them.When they already had the examples of the O853 and the 590 to go by.
Going by the 590 that would have given them a 12.2 litre 130 x 154 design.Perfect a Rolls and TD120 and probably 14 litre ■■■■■■■ killer.
The 590 and 690 stay to power the continuing production of Routemasters.
You can’t blame Leyland for that.
You can at worst blame bad design.
Or at best weak designers not willing to take on their managers in a blazing row and get it on record, and/or the bankers deliberately with holding resources from Stokes after that.
I’m sure that any designer worth their salt saying that our truck engines have to be as good as our bus engines and the 760 based TL12 won’t cut it would have been met by approval from Stokes.
The government and bankers were obviously working to a more treacherous agenda though regardless.
Ironically the smoking gun is contained in the Hansard regarding closure of Park Royal.The bs regarding the move to OMO on London buses doesn’t add up when the Routemaster was more in demand and loved than ever by its users and crews during the late 1970’s.
essexpete:
For the BL group a strategy was needed as to what each market goal would be with just one main type for each sector/market. Cut out the cross group competition. Some marques will have to be consigned to history. They all were within a dozen years. There is one short term drawback that with customers with brand loyalty it is possible to lose that customer completely. I have no idea about marketing but I have read this.
Commercial
Heavy special haulage
Max weight transcontinental tractor unit
Local delivery tractor unit
8 and 6 wheeler chassis with day and sleeper option
4 wheeler from 10 to 16 ton
Sub 10 ton
Heavy van chassis
Light van
Initially you would have to use what is in house with the proviso that where appropriate you can out source an engine and/or gearbox.
May I suggest that you trawl through the “Why Did British Leyland Fail?” thread
Apologies I had not seen the thread you mention and was side tracking.
gingerfold:
^^^^^^^^^
You must never have travelled on a Lancashire United Transport Guy with a Gardner engine. They were very noisy.
Plenty of LX and LXB’s went into buses though. I don’t recall it having a reputation for noise, although I recall, from reading this forum, that the early Eagle was a noisy engine.
essexpete:
Apologies I had not seen the thread you mention and was side tracking.
Actually the topic resulted from a discussion regarding the choice between L12/TL12 v Rolls Eagle as the best way forward for Leyland before/during the gestation period of the T45.
Exactly the same questions apply to the decisions taking place within the car division all collectively dragging the firm under.
gingerfold:
^^^^^^^^^
You must never have travelled on a Lancashire United Transport Guy with a Gardner engine. They were very noisy.
Plenty of LX and LXB’s went into buses though. I don’t recall it having a reputation for noise, although I recall, from reading this forum, that the early Eagle was a noisy engine.
Ironically the sound of the Matador’s motor or a 590/690 in a bus was up there with the Merlin and the BMC C series as iconic not objectionable.
Not sure how an early Eagle could possibly have been much different to a later one.I preferred the 265 to the NA ■■■■■■■ in the Atki at least.
The fact is 12 litre + motors were never going to be high on the PSV buyers’ list at that point.
On that note was the TD120 used much if at all in Volvo PSV’s ?.
ramone:
If each commercial vehicle company had been able to run independently within the group and keeping their own profits they may have succeeded pooling their research . AEC more than certainly wouldn’t have gone with the V8 and the AV760 would have been replaced with more funds available for development. It didn’t happen so they had to work with what they had , they definitely wouldn’t have needed RR if the development funds were there
I don’t get your link between the V8 and the 760 at their respective design stages and Leyland.
The erroneous design philosophy is contained within the reference to the ■■■■■■■ court case.
Something made AEC’s designers jump from the 0.71 bore stroke ratio of the 7.5 litre Matador motor and 0.84 of the 590 to the 0.95 and 1.18 of the 760 and V8 respectively.
Leyland obviously had no input into that decision.AEC’s designers were obviously fixated on the idea of the big bore and short stroke philosophy.Why else would the ■■■■■■■ court case even have mattered to them.When they already had the examples of the O853 and the 590 to go by.
Going by the 590 that would have given them a 12.2 litre 130 x 154 design.Perfect a Rolls and TD120 and probably 14 litre ■■■■■■■ killer.
The 590 and 690 stay to power the continuing production of Routemasters.
You can’t blame Leyland for that.
You can at worst blame bad design.
Or at best weak designers not willing to take on their managers in a blazing row and get it on record, and/or the bankers deliberately with holding resources from Stokes after that.
I’m sure that any designer worth their salt saying that our truck engines have to be as good as our bus engines and the 760 based TL12 won’t cut it would have been met by approval from Stokes.
The government and bankers were obviously working to a more treacherous agenda though regardless.
Ironically the smoking gun is contained in the Hansard regarding closure of Park Royal.The bs regarding the move to OMO on London buses doesn’t add up when the Routemaster was more in demand and loved than ever by its users and crews during the late 1970’s.
Quite simply there was no link between the V8 and the AV760 , i said if AEC were to have kept their profits and reinvested them into development then they would have probably designed a new engine by the mid 70s . As for the V8 it was a project they never wanted to put into production but were forced to by Leyland bosses. But again the TL12 did cut it right up to its demise in the very early 80s when Leyland decided to do the total opposite to every European manufacturer that has survived and buy in engines because there were no funds to build a new engine . The basis for the AECs engines were never a bad design
