essexpete:
Thanks Gingerfold, very informative for an uninformed anorak. Would it not have been better to at least dump the Guy product and perhaps offer an 8 wheeler with a choice of AEC, Rolls or ■■■■■■■■ with perhaps a site type cab and a more trunking based cab both tilt?
Generaly I don`t point out spelling mistates, but who would want like to be associated with a noisy, oily, waste of space?
■■■■■■■ might be offended.
Quite right. I think my phone selected that for some reason. No excuse. Sah!
dazcapri:
This is an interesting listen if you have 45 mins spare bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lz6n
Radio 4’s Reunion programme on the collapse of BL, it’s obvious that there’s no love lost between management and workers and Edwardes certainly wasn’t popular.
Contrary to Carryfast’s advice there’s not one mention of the company being saved by putting a V8 into an obsolete car
The Stag balls up was only one of many mistakes in the car depart. I read some where back in the thread about the mini. Father in law worked as a design engineer for Ford. One of the Ford methods of evaluating the opposition was to have a couple of Minis into the workshops and pull them apart. The Ford guys could not make the Mini add up for production costs.
Anorak, people don’t buy CATs for fuel economy! Also your question to Carryfast had one important omission, gearbox ratio, was it direct, single overdrive or double overdrive?
dazcapri:
This is an interesting listen if you have 45 mins spare bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lz6n
Radio 4’s Reunion programme on the collapse of BL, it’s obvious that there’s no love lost between management and workers and Edwardes certainly wasn’t popular.
Contrary to Carryfast’s advice there’s not one mention of the company being saved by putting a V8 into an obsolete car
But the IRS Triumph 2.5 estate and saloon was anything but obsolete compared to the SD1.
Much closer to what was needed in the form of a BMW 5 series competitor.
So what did Edwardes do.
He ran with it then went full Jap front wheel drive ■■■■■■.
Also closed down AEC and Park Royal and with it effectively the truck and bus division.
newmercman:
Anorak, people don’t buy CATs for fuel economy! Also your question to Carryfast had one important omission, gearbox ratio, was it direct, single overdrive or double overdrive?
I’d doubt that changing their bore stroke ratio to 0.95 would match it let alone improve it.
Again I haven’t got a clue what Anorak’s question even means.
What has BMEP got to do with anything other than comparing the specific torque outputs of different engines.
What force does the road exert.
What is the link between specific torque output v gearing.
Gearing is used as further leverage to multiply engine torque output ( nothing to do with specific torque output ) at the expense of lower road speed and increased engine speed.
Good luck with a direct final drive.
essexpete:
The Ford guys could not make the Mini add up for production costs.
To be fair production costs aren’t the issue it’s the value of the heap on the forecourt to a prospective punter and what they are prepared to pay for it over production cost which determines the profitability of the thing.
No one bought a Mini because they really wanted a Mini and were prepared to pay for the privilege.The A40 and the Morris Minor were better cars and people were willing to pay more for them.Let alone the Cortina or Anglia.
If you took the thing into a garage for even a fan belt let alone new clutch, the engine oil lubricated gearbox usually gave up before the clutch anyway, they would usually give you a prohibitive price just to make you take it somewhere else.
Don’t under estimated how much the things were hated by those expected to work on them whether garage staff or DIY.
That’s even before its unfortunate owners suddenly woke up to what an awful thing it was to sit it and drive.Let alone get involved in a crash.The 1100 rot box was similar.Hateful pieces of dangerous junk. home.bt.com/news/on-this-day/se … 4003957549
newmercman:
Anorak, people don’t buy CATs for fuel economy! Also your question to Carryfast had one important omission, gearbox ratio, was it direct, single overdrive or double overdrive?
newmercman:
Anorak, people don’t buy CATs for fuel economy! Also your question to Carryfast had one important omission, gearbox ratio, was it direct, single overdrive or double overdrive?
ramone:
And still no answer from CF what problems did the TL12 or even the AV760 cause operators?
By all accounts not too bad at all IF the aim is only something with 200 - 270 hp max produced at 2-2,200 rpm and 12.5 litres to do it.
Not much use in keeping Leyland ticking over v the DAF DK and Volvo TD120 competition though.
Looking again at your reply , by all accounts not bad, that’s where you should have left it. But instead you rabbit on about F89 and 2800 Dafs . Was there a high powered 2800 in 1973 when the Marathon was launched. The F88 and Scania 110 were nearer the mark infact wasn’t the 290 F88 introduced after the Marathon . I don’t think hauliers and drivers alike could care less about the stroke or even how fast it revved . It’s how they performed which was efficiently and reliable and quite rapid too. Many operators were suspicious about these foreign imports some with considerably higher purchase prices. If AEC had the resources which the foreign competion had at their disposal and the freedom to design and build what was required there could have been a different outcome.
You mention the TL12 had its roots spurning from the 590 well that would have been a 50s design then and the TL was the last of a series of engines which took BL into the early 80s , if the funds had been there then so would the new engine.
essexpete:
Thanks Gingerfold, very informative for an uninformed anorak. Would it not have been better to at least dump the Guy product and perhaps offer an 8 wheeler with a choice of AEC, Rolls or ■■■■■■■■ with perhaps a site type cab and a more trunking based cab both tilt?
Generaly I don`t point out spelling mistates, but who would want like to be associated with a noisy, oily, waste of space?
■■■■■■■ might be offended.
CF’s insistence that the shorter stoke AEC engines was dictated by bus requirements is at odds with many bus fleet managers that specified long stroke Gardner engines in Daimler, Guy, and Bristol PSVs. True, the LUT Gardner powered Guys were lumbering, slow and ran in a very relaxed way, especially those that had the 5LW. Conversely, the Gardner Daimlers of Salford City Transport on the very tightly timed Manchester to Bolton number 8 route, seemed much livelier, probably partly due to their pre-select gearbox. Power was also relevant to bus operators, and as a lad I lived on the Bolton to Bury 52 route, which was a joint service with Bolton and Bury Corporations. In those days I could identify every diesel engine on the road by its sound, I didn’t need to see the lorry or bus to know what make it was. Normally on the 52 route, which was a 15 minutes interval service. both Bolton and Bury tended to run their newer buses. One morning I was surprised to hear, and see, a Bolton Corporation Leyland PD1 on the route, probably standing-in for a failed bus. These had an 8.6 litre engine I think (CAV551 will correct me), anyway it was less powerful than the usual buses. It remained on the route all day, but by the evening it was running late on the schedule. It wasn’t capable of keeping to time with a lower powered engine.
essexpete:
The Ford guys could not make the Mini add up for production costs.
To be fair production costs aren’t the issue it’s the value of the heap on the forecourt to a prospective punter and what they are prepared to pay for it over production cost which determines the profitability of the thing.
No one bought a Mini because they really wanted a Mini and were prepared to pay for the privilege.The A40 and the Morris Minor were better cars and people were willing to pay more for them.Let alone the Cortina or Anglia.
If you took the thing into a garage for even a fan belt let alone new clutch, the engine oil lubricated gearbox usually gave up before the clutch anyway, they would usually give you a prohibitive price just to make you take it somewhere else.
Don’t under estimated how much the things were hated by those expected to work on them whether garage staff or DIY.
That’s even before its unfortunate owners suddenly woke up to what an awful thing it was to sit it and drive.Let alone get involved in a crash.The 1100 rot box was similar.Hateful pieces of dangerous junk. home.bt.com/news/on-this-day/se … 4003957549
Well I think the production costs were an issue and were largely caused by the same reasons you high light for later repair costs. It was another example of being ahead of the game in technology but not quite getting it right at the time. Sig. Iss must take some of the blame. Not sure I would agree that the Mog was a better car? It really was an out of date heap by the 60s. Of course that is just an opinion to which we are all entitled.
The Mini never made money for BMC, that is well documented. However I worked at a BMC dealership from 1966 to 1974 and the Mini was still the best seller and we never had enough to sell. Many customers had repeat orders. However our salemen knew via the factory that it was an expensive vehicle to pruduce but had to be sold cheaply to attract the family clientelle. They were not that bad to work on either, I changed the clutch in my mates Mini in a morning at his house and I had never done one before as I was in the commercial vehicle workshop so didn’t work on cars. It was what it was, Issigonis was given the order to design a four seater car whithin a certain overall length and he did just that. Most of our mechanics ran Mini’s themselves so couldn’t have hated them that much? Regarding the Minor: William Morris never liked it and wanted the Morris Eight series E to continue in production, he himself drove a Wolseley Eight (the only one made) until his death. The Minor was of course designed to have a flat four engine originally, however the sidevalve engine from the E models was actually used as Wlliam Morris wasn’t a fan of overhead valve engines. The Minor was narrower originally as well and had to be widened, hence the raised section in the bonnet which was the the difference in width. When the Marina was unveiled, we had two in the showroom but they remained covered until a certain time on an allotted day, they were much in demand. We actually obtained cars meant for export and our fitters had to put heaters in them for the UK market to keep up with orders. Another big seller was the Wolseley 18/85 and it’s offspring, several of our mechanics and office staff bought them as they were exellent for towing their caravans.
All of this has nothing to do with engine design of course, and ‘somebody’ will say it is a load on rubbish as he has done with other posters regarding AEC etc even though they have access to the ‘written word’ at the time of closure, but I worked alongside folk who had been involved with Morris and later BMC products from the 1930’s and I also had an Uncle who spent his working life at Cowley so learned from them. Anyway I’m away from this thread now, full stop.
gingerfold:
CF’s insistence that the shorter stoke AEC engines was dictated by bus requirements is at odds with many bus fleet managers that specified long stroke Gardner engines in Daimler, Guy, and Bristol PSVs. True, the LUT Gardner powered Guys were lumbering, slow and ran in a very relaxed way, especially those that had the 5LW. Conversely, the Gardner Daimlers of Salford City Transport on the very tightly timed Manchester to Bolton number 8 route, seemed much livelier, probably partly due to their pre-select gearbox. Power was also relevant to bus operators, and as a lad I lived on the Bolton to Bury 52 route, which was a joint service with Bolton and Bury Corporations. In those days I could identify every diesel engine on the road by its sound, I didn’t need to see the lorry or bus to know what make it was. Normally on the 52 route, which was a 15 minutes interval service. both Bolton and Bury tended to run their newer buses. One morning I was surprised to hear, and see, a Bolton Corporation Leyland PD1 on the route, probably standing-in for a failed bus. These had an 8.6 litre engine I think (CAV551 will correct me), anyway it was less powerful than the usual buses. It remained on the route all day, but by the evening it was running late on the schedule. It wasn’t capable of keeping to time with a lower powered engine.
We know that the Regent II used the Matador’s 173 motor itself way short of a 6 inch stroke.
The Regent III/RT used the 8.8 followed by the same 142 mm stroke which stayed right through from 590, 690 to 760/TL12.
I don’t think AEC made any 6 inch stroke road diesel ?.
Your own references to Gardner powered buses actually adds weight to the fact that AEC was crippled by its fixation on the 142 mm stroke dimension.
My guess being that the Regent II was limited in space that regard and Regent III on moreso.
That then set in stone AEC’s engine design parameters.
On that note we know that a 760 will fit in a Routemaster but doubt if a smaller capacity Gardner 6 LXB would ?.
For now I’ll stand by the idea that AEC’s bus manufacturing origins damaged its truck engine manufacturing aspirations.
They clearly literally went backwards from the 173 to all that followed in terms of truck engine design.
As opposed to the 0.82 bore stroke ratio which a 120 x 146 would have set them and ‘if’ they’d have then chosen to maintain that ratio up to the 760’s 12.5 litres.It seems that at the end of the day they were trying to create economies of scale by using compromised tailored sized bus engines to power trucks.
The enigma of the TL12 actually goes back to the question of the choice of 120 x 142 instead of 120 x 146 and why did they then progressively allow bore stroke ratios to be eroded even from the 120 x 142 0.84 ratio as engine capacities increased regardless.
essexpete:
Not sure I would agree that the Mog was a better car? It really was an out of date heap by the 60s. Of course that is just an opinion to which we are all entitled.
It depends on if you regard an inaccessible to work on wrong wheel drive death trap that uses engine oil to libricate its gearbox as progress.
The Mog had been around for a while admitted but even that was still better.
The A40 or an Anglia v Mini was a no brainer.
My Dad’s earnings in the trade in the day were based on that fact.The simple rule was don’t get involved with 1100’s or Minis.The Allegro and Maxi were no different.Absolute junk.
If anyone wanted to p ex one or needing to fix one then show em the door.
The basic premise that Issigonis’ junk was progress v any BMC rear wheel drive option would by definition mean that a Citroen is supposedly better than a BMW.Although there are front wheel drive cognoscenti who really do think that.Unfortunately for BMC and Leyland Group they won out.
windrush:
The Mini never made money for BMC, that is well documented. However I worked at a BMC dealership from 1966 to 1974 and the Mini was still the best seller and we never had enough to sell. Many customers had repeat orders. However our salemen knew via the factory that it was an expensive vehicle to pruduce but had to be sold cheaply to attract the family clientelle. They were not that bad to work on either, I changed the clutch in my mates Mini in a morning at his house and I had never done one before as I was in the commercial vehicle workshop so didn’t work on cars. It was what it was, Issigonis was given the order to design a four seater car whithin a certain overall length and he did just that. Most of our mechanics ran Mini’s themselves so couldn’t have hated them that much? Regarding the Minor: William Morris never liked it and wanted the Morris Eight series E to continue in production, he himself drove a Wolseley Eight (the only one made) until his death. The Minor was of course designed to have a flat four engine originally, however the sidevalve engine from the E models was actually used as Wlliam Morris wasn’t a fan of overhead valve engines. The Minor was narrower originally as well and had to be widened, hence the raised section in the bonnet which was the the difference in width. When the Marina was unveiled, we had two in the showroom but they remained covered until a certain time on an allotted day, they were much in demand. We actually obtained cars meant for export and our fitters had to put heaters in them for the UK market to keep up with orders. Another big seller was the Wolseley 18/85 and it’s offspring, several of our mechanics and office staff bought them as they were exellent for towing their caravans.
All of this has nothing to do with engine design of course, and ‘somebody’ will say it is a load on rubbish as he has done with other posters regarding AEC etc even though they have access to the ‘written word’ at the time of closure, but I worked alongside folk who had been involved with Morris and later BMC products from the 1930’s and I also had an Uncle who spent his working life at Cowley so learned from them. Anyway I’m away from this thread now, full stop.
The Mini obviously the only product ever to reverse the laws of supply and demand.
Big demand but could only be sold for a Mars Bar and a packet of crisps.
Admittedly better than going to work on the bus and desperate dealers wanting to offload em at whatever they could get for em made for a buyers market creating its own special type of ‘demand’.Just not as we know it though high demand from reluctant buyers looking for a desperation sale who’s priority was spending money on other things not cars.Just what any car dealer needs.
Let’s tow a caravan with a front wheel drive motor.What could possibly go wrong.
The Marina 1.8 estate remind me why that was in more demand than a Maxi or an Allegro.
My comments regarding BMC were anything but dissing its workforce.
Transverse front wheel drive engine ‘design’ is what contributed to the end of BMC, Triumph and Rover.Just as the TL12 helped to finish off Leyland trucks.
Nothing to do with the work force who were second to none.
[zb]
anorak:
In the last century, successful engines were made with a wide range of bore/stroke ratios. The torque is proportional to the bore squared multiplied by the stroke. If you think that stroke is more important, how do you explain it in the context of that fact?
Because multiplying less bore squared by more stroke = less force required because it’s multiplied by more distance to obtain the equivalent torque just like using a longer lever.Distance costs nothing in terms of fuel or stress.Force does.
Energy = Force x Distance. Both are exactly equal in their influence on fuel use; any 12 year old knows that.
Now, please- tell us the relationship between force and stress. Try to remember you are addressing adults.
Edit- what about the force on the big end, as a result of its acceleration? How does that vary with stroke?
[zb]
anorak:
Because multiplying less bore squared by more stroke = less force required because it’s multiplied by more distance to obtain the equivalent torque just like using a longer lever.Distance costs nothing in terms of fuel or stress.Force does.
Energy = Force x Distance. Both are exactly equal in their influence on fuel use; any 12 year old knows that.
Now, please- tell us the relationship between force and stress. Try to remember you are addressing adults.
[/quote]
Which part of try to use a spanner instead of a long bar to loosen/tighten a truck’s wheelnuts you’ll find out when your wrist or forearm snaps didn’t you understand.
Distance ( leverage ) is a ‘force’ multiplier.The force is what requires the fuel to produce it not the distance.The force of the bang in the cylinder is just the same.Using a longer bar multiplies the force of that bang and thereby creates more energy at the flywheel for the equivalent force applied to the con rod.
Remind me again what is BMEP other than just a comparison of specific torque outputs.
So why would I burn as much fuel and impose the same amount of stress to create the same or better specific torque output if I maximise the leverage and thereby minimise the force applied to the con rod.
While how are you going to compensate for less leverage without putting more force through the con rod.
How are you going to obtain that extra force without burning more fuel to get it.
How doesn’t that create more stress in the con rod assembly and possibly the head to block joint if you resort to higher cylinder pressures as specific torque outputs increase.
