gingerfold:
There you go CF, I agree with you about the RR engines from the mid-70s onwards.
Which makes the case for not scrapping the TL12 in 1975 2 years after its introduction and 4-5 years before the launch of the Roadtrain how ?.
There doesn’t seem to be much evidence of any major issues with the 280 certainly nothing which would suggest it was inherently too weak to handle 300 hp + outputs at less than 2,200 rpm ?.More like the exact opposite.
So Scammell connected with Rolls and AEC connections with Rolls the solution was obvious at that point to anyone committed to keeping Leyland in the frame.
Certainly better than any of the alternative options regarding engine production.
So government funded hostile takeover of Rolls Royce Diesels ,close Shrewsbury, move its operations to Southall, together with Tolpits Lane.
That’s what I call rationalisation.
Because of one factor you always disregard. Customer loyalty. Long-standing AEC customers would always choose to buy a lorry with AEC heritage rather than an unknown engine that had already gained a reputation for unreliability. At that time when the Marathon was launched RR diesel engines were not very common in lorries. The Eagle 220 was offered as a low power and cheaper Marathon option, but there weren’t many purchasers. It was not until the Marathon Mark 2, 1977, that the higher power and more reliable RR engines became available that a few more Marathons were seen with those power units. ■■■■■■■ was the preferred option for former Guy Big J operators that bought the Marathon. The TL12 was the preferred option for former AEC operators in both the Marathon and T45 Roadtrain, that’s why numerous Marathons were adorned with AEC letters and badges.
Never, ever underestimate the power of operator loyalty to a make of lorry, and that still applies today to old-school family-firm hauliers.
Brand loyalty was a big factor back then, which is why operators remained running Gardner powered vehicles possibly longer than was ideal as they had done well for them in the past and they saw no real reason to change? Hugh Gardner saw no reason to change either: as I was told by their own test driver “If your gaffer wanted this truck to perform better (a Foden with the 201 LXC and Fuller box) then he ordered it with the wrong engine”. I worked for a BMC (Morris) dealership and some customers chose to wait for a Morris badged FFK etc rather that go to the other BMC (Austin) dealers such as Vincent’s or Gibbs of Bedfont where they could get an identical (apart from the badge) vehicle faster. In the past they had operated Morris-Commercials and stayed with the brand they new. Conversley many did buy Austins, but then still chose us to service them! Again I believe that fuel consumption was probably a higher priority to operators than crank throw, cylinder pressures etc, power output wasn’t such a big deal back then as what we had coped well enough with the vehicle weights of the time.
No doubt this is all a load of rubbish and I imagined it so I will quietly withdraw from the thread and keep my head down as it’s going nowhere fast, just like the Gardner LXC really.
Brand loyalty was a big factor back then, which is why operators remained running Gardner powered vehicles possibly longer than was ideal as they had done well for them in the past and they saw no real reason to change? Hugh Gardner saw no reason to change either: as I was told by their own test driver “If your gaffer wanted this truck to perform better (a Foden with the 201 LXC and Fuller box) then he ordered it with the wrong engine”. I worked for a BMC (Morris) dealership and some customers chose to wait for a Morris badged FFK etc rather that go to the other BMC (Austin) dealers such as Vincent’s or Gibbs of Bedfont where they could get an identical (apart from the badge) vehicle faster. In the past they had operated Morris-Commercials and stayed with the brand they new. Conversley many did buy Austins, but then still chose us to service them! Again I believe that fuel consumption was probably a higher priority to operators than crank throw, cylinder pressures etc, power output wasn’t such a big deal back then as what we had coped well enough with the vehicle weights of the time.
No doubt this is all a load of rubbish and I imagined it so I will quietly withdraw from the thread and keep my head down as it’s going nowhere fast, just like the Gardner LXC really.
Pete.
Old fashioned sayings: " He who pays the piper calls the tune." “The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”
I can Identify and qualify the remarks about brand loyalty from my days in the industry during the early '70’s when I was firmly committed to Atkinsons but unfortunately in mid '73 when I desperately required additional units I was unable to obtain an Atky for love nor money. So I turned to ERF which was the closest spec to the Atky’s and the ERF’s gave the same reliable service ! But if I could of got my hands on Atkinson units I would have stuck with them and never bothered with ERF. A similar occurrence happened the following year but this time I took delivery of a Seddon 32/4 with ■■■■■■■ 220 and Fuller 610 and again this unit gave reliable service but as and when I could I always bought Atkys when they were available with the last two joining the fleet in late '75. Then matters did go downhill somewhat when the Sed/Atk appeared ! but I remained loyal for sometime to the SA Marque but loyalty eventually wears very thin and evaporates ! Bewick
ramone:
Yep BL losing millions every year should bring in another big company losing money with a far from perfect engine . Scammell using 280 RR or V8 Detroit knew where they would be pulling the customers away from TD120 buyers
But an intercooled 320 Rolls powered T45, obviously wouldn’t have been the same thing as a Crusader with a 280 in it.Let alone a TL12 in either.
But it needed to be done from day 1.Not just before they closed the doors and effectively told DAF to take over all their customers.
Yep let’s put an 8v71 NA anchor in it when the turbo 8v92 was available.
Just as though someone from on high had told both Bedford and Scammell not to upset the foreign competition’s party.
So there you go contradicting yourself again , in '73 the TL12 was born but you are saying they should have not bothered and put the unreliable and thirsty 220/280 Rolls in instead .The question i keep asking is what problems did the TL12 give to hauliers . Were they too reliable and economical?
ramone:
Yep BL losing millions every year should bring in another big company losing money with a far from perfect engine . Scammell using 280 RR or V8 Detroit knew where they would be pulling the customers away from TD120 buyers
But an intercooled 320 Rolls powered T45, obviously wouldn’t have been the same thing as a Crusader with a 280 in it.Let alone a TL12 in either.
But it needed to be done from day 1.Not just before they closed the doors and effectively told DAF to take over all their customers.
Yep let’s put an 8v71 NA anchor in it when the turbo 8v92 was available.
Just as though someone from on high had told both Bedford and Scammell not to upset the foreign competition’s party.
So there you go contradicting yourself again , in '73 the TL12 was born but you are saying they should have not bothered and put the unreliable and thirsty 220/280 Rolls in instead .The question i keep asking is what problems did the TL12 give to hauliers . Were they too reliable and economical?
[zb]
anorak:
Please remove my username from the title of this thread.
You’ve been called out here to back up your seeming claims of inertial tensile load on a piston and rod assembly at TDC matching those of compressive load during the expansion phase and stroke ?.
Also that leverage doesn’t matter in the latter equation or the fact that more specific work can be extracted from an engine by maximising the leverage side of that equation ?.
What’s your problem with that.
‘Carryfast’:
Why would anyone have wanted to use AEC instead of Rolls in Leyland’s fight for its survival unless they intended to lose.
For the simple reason that the TL12 was reliable, the RR of 1974 was unreliable.
Seemingly based on a survey which resulted in the conclusion that the less stressed the design the more reliable the product.
By that yardstick Gardner would have still been making the 6 and 8 LXB today.
Scammell and the MoD obviously didn’t agree.
So it ‘might’ possibly have needed some fettling at the end of the day but starting from a higher bar in terms of its proven capabilities regards output and its more sensible bore stroke ratio as part of that.
What we do know is that, even by your own comments, the Rolls was the better product to go in the T45 not the TL12.Just as the Fuller was the better transmission than Spicer.
So what did Leyland do bearing in mind the few more sensible parts of the Ryder report.
Carryfast:
So government funded hostile takeover of Rolls Royce Diesels ,close Shrewsbury, move its operations to Southall, together with Tolpits Lane.
That’s what I call rationalisation.
Because of one factor you always disregard. Customer loyalty. Long-standing AEC customers would always choose to buy a lorry with AEC heritage rather than an unknown engine that had already gained a reputation for unreliability.
So the logical conclusion of your argument is put the TL12 in the T45, after AEC’s works had been closed anyway, to meet the ‘loyalties’ of AEC’s former customers.Having admitted that the RR was a reliable proposition at that point in time.
Also arguably before if going by Scammell’s experience.
Remind me what happened next in the T45’s history.
Bewick:
loyalty eventually wears very thin and evaporates ! Bewick
To be fair the issue of RR v TL12 and with it Leyland and RR being stitched up to the advantage of the foreign competition in the form of DAF had nothing to do with former Gardner or AEC customers’ loyalties.
At that point it became an argument between Scania, DAF, and Volvo loyalties.
In which case the similar comparisons apply TD 120 v DAF DK v Scania 112/3.
By my theory the TD120 v the others is a no brainer.
Ironically at least one former Gardner fan won’t agree.
Carryfast:
But an intercooled 320 Rolls powered T45, obviously wouldn’t have been the same thing as a Crusader with a 280 in it.Let alone a TL12 in either.
But it needed to be done from day 1.Not just before they closed the doors and effectively told DAF to take over all their customers.
Yep let’s put an 8v71 NA anchor in it when the turbo 8v92 was available.
Just as though someone from on high had told both Bedford and Scammell not to upset the foreign competition’s party.
So there you go contradicting yourself again , in '73 the TL12 was born but you are saying they should have not bothered and put the unreliable and thirsty 220/280 Rolls in instead .The question i keep asking is what problems did the TL12 give to hauliers . Were they too reliable and economical?
It’s obvious that you’re way over exaggerating any ‘reliability’ issues which the 280 might have had.
To divert away from the point that starting from a point of something already showing 300 hp + potential without actually going bang in a big way is where Leyland needed to be in 1973.
Not something with a reliable output which would be foreseeably obsolete within 5 years.
So they wanted to follow the lead and example of Mack.
You know someting with at least a 6 inch stroke and inter cooling from the start.
Which would have meant the T45 being introduced in the form it should have been from the start not just before closing the doors.
ramone:
Yep BL losing millions every year should bring in another big company losing money with a far from perfect engine . Scammell using 280 RR or V8 Detroit knew where they would be pulling the customers away from TD120 buyers
But an intercooled 320 Rolls powered T45, obviously wouldn’t have been the same thing as a Crusader with a 280 in it.Let alone a TL12 in either.
But it needed to be done from day 1.Not just before they closed the doors and effectively told DAF to take over all their customers.
Yep let’s put an 8v71 NA anchor in it when the turbo 8v92 was available.
Just as though someone from on high had told both Bedford and Scammell not to upset the foreign competition’s party.
So there you go contradicting yourself again , in '73 the TL12 was born but you are saying they should have not bothered and put the unreliable and thirsty 220/280 Rolls in instead .The question i keep asking is what problems did the TL12 give to hauliers . Were they too reliable and economical?
That would be the 8V92 that owners found required bearing changes at 100,000 miles. At least the AEC had the good grace to withdraw their engine from sale when it was found to require very frequent bearing changes to prevent failure rather than just leave operators to rely on experience.
cav551:
That would be the 8V92 that owners found required bearing changes at 100,000 miles. At least the AEC had the good grace to withdraw their engine from sale when it was found to require very frequent bearing changes to prevent failure rather than just leave operators to rely on experience.
‘Some owners’.The same 8v92 that the factory were happy to put a 200,000 mile parts and labour warranty on.
The same one that ended its days in UK service hauling tank transporters around until relatively recently.
The same transporters that Oshkosh decided needed a C18 to do the same job as the 8v92 was doing.
While I seem to have found some common ground with CAT and Paccar among numerous others that a good long stroke inline 6 cylinder motor is as good as any in shifting a heavy truck along the road.
No need for the left field V engine two stroke which I’m at least open minded to.
V engines, especially relatively small V engines, are compromised regarding their bearing surface area in that regard.If the design has any flaws that’s obviously one of them.
Who would have thought it.
Maximising the leverage and/or sharing the load across twice as meany power strokes obviously helps in that regard so like the CAT 3408, at least the 8v92’s designers actually tried to make it work and actually succeeded more than not.Certainly way better than the ■■■■■■■ 903 grenade.
While Scania’s V8 was also only going one way in that regard and that wasn’t over square.
cav551:
That would be the 8V92 that owners found required bearing changes at 100,000 miles. At least the AEC had the good grace to withdraw their engine from sale when it was found to require very frequent bearing changes to prevent failure rather than just leave operators to rely on experience.
‘Some owners’.The same 8v92 that the factory were happy to put a 200,000 mile parts and labour warranty on.
The same one that ended its days in UK service hauling tank transporters around until relatively recently.
The same transporters that Oshkosh decided needed a C18 to do the same job as the 8v92 was doing.
While I seem to have found some common ground with CAT and Paccar among numerous others that a good long stroke inline 6 cylinder motor is as good as any in shifting a heavy truck along the road.
No need for the left field V engine two stroke which I’m at least open minded to.
V engines, especially relatively small V engines, are compromised regarding their bearing surface area in that regard.If the design has any flaws that’s obviously one of them.
Who would have thought it.
Maximising the leverage and/or sharing the load across twice as meany power strokes obviously helps in that regard so like the CAT 3408, at least the 8v92’s designers actually tried to make it work and actually succeeded more than not.Certainly way better than the ■■■■■■■ 903 grenade.
While Scania’s V8 was also only going one way in that regard and that wasn’t over square.
145,000 miles from new. You can hardly call a motorhome arduous duty. From 9.10 minutes to about 11.00 minutes in.
Anything which can make 1,200 lb/ft at 1,200 rpm and 1,400 lb/ft from 1,300 to 2,100 rpm from a 1974 designed 12 litre V8 motor without going bang in a big way isn’t an inherently bad design.200,000 was the expected bearing replacement interval.
Bad fuelling adjustment is known to wash bearings.
What was a generally expected overhaul interval by the standards of the day bearing in mind the inherent disadvantages of a ( too ? ) small V8’s big end bearing area.
As I’ve said a decent long stroke inline 6 is as good as it gets.
While the CAT 3408 and the latest Scania V8’s show that the leverage side of the torque equation is no less important in that configuration if you want to minimise stresses.
‘Carryfast’:
Why would anyone have wanted to use AEC instead of Rolls in Leyland’s fight for its survival unless they intended to lose.
For the simple reason that the TL12 was reliable, the RR of 1974 was unreliable.
Seemingly based on a survey which resulted in the conclusion that the less stressed the design the more reliable the product.
By that yardstick Gardner would have still been making the 6 and 8 LXB today.
Scammell and the MoD obviously didn’t agree.
So it ‘might’ possibly have needed some fettling at the end of the day but starting from a higher bar in terms of its proven capabilities regards output and its more sensible bore stroke ratio as part of that.
What we do know is that, even by your own comments, the Rolls was the better product to go in the T45 not the TL12.Just as the Fuller was the better transmission than Spicer.
So what did Leyland do bearing in mind the few more sensible parts of the Ryder report.
No, based on operator’s experiences of running trucks, again sorry to say, an area in which your own lack of experience and knowledge shows time and time again in numerous posts you make.
And again, has been explained to you previously, the launch of the T45 coincided with a serious economic recession and downturn which badly affected new truck sales. That was an era when there weren’t any “smoke and mirrors” leasing deals of today which allow many operators with poor credit ratings to run new vehicles.
Carryfast:
So government funded hostile takeover of Rolls Royce Diesels ,close Shrewsbury, move its operations to Southall, together with Tolpits Lane.
That’s what I call rationalisation.
Because of one factor you always disregard. Customer loyalty. Long-standing AEC customers would always choose to buy a lorry with AEC heritage rather than an unknown engine that had already gained a reputation for unreliability.
So the logical conclusion of your argument is put the TL12 in the T45, after AEC’s works had been closed anyway, to meet the ‘loyalties’ of AEC’s former customers.Having admitted that the RR was a reliable proposition at that point in time.
Also arguably before if going by Scammell’s experience.
Remind me what happened next in the T45’s history.
What are you waffling on about? The options in the top weight T45 models were TL12, Rolls Royce, and ■■■■■■■■ The lighter Cruiser and rigids also offered the TL11.
In 1973 a 300hp engine was an indulgence in snything other than a heavy haulage chassis, what was even available at that time with that power? F89, **32 Merc/320 MAN, 310 Deutz, 190-33 FIAT and off the top of my head that’s it, the 140 was still on the drawing board, the Transcon was yet to appear so the 335 ■■■■■■■ was yet to cross the pond, as was the 318 Detroit (8V71) none of which were mainstream, but too of the range specials and you seriously expect the AEC and Leyland designers and accountants to sign off on a 300+hp turbo intercooled long stroke 12litre in line 6 as a replacement for a 760 or 680, regardless of the state of the finances within the group.
Get a grip man ffs, they were designing products based on sales and customer demands, not from a crystal ball.
newmercman:
In 1973 a 300hp engine was an indulgence in snything other than a heavy haulage chassis, what was even available at that time with that power? F89, **32 Merc/320 MAN, 310 Deutz, 190-33 FIAT and off the top of my head that’s it, the 140 was still on the drawing board, the Transcon was yet to appear so the 335 ■■■■■■■ was yet to cross the pond, as was the 318 Detroit (8V71) none of which were mainstream, but too of the range specials and you seriously expect the AEC and Leyland designers and accountants to sign off on a 300+hp turbo intercooled long stroke 12litre in line 6 as a replacement for a 760 or 680, regardless of the state of the finances within the group.
Get a grip man ffs, they were designing products based on sales and customer demands, not from a crystal ball.
Exactly. Realistic development related to what can be sold in volume which in turn provides the revenue to finance R&D. Let’s compare the situation at the time of the very early 1970s with today. If the be all and end all was to produce 100 lbft litre from designs producing around half that then let’s hear how we are getting over 300 lbft litre out of today’s engines in what looks like being a depressed market place with not a great deal of cash for R&D? Are we going to be able to sell our new baby in sufficient volume considering the sales level achived by out current best offering in relation to our fleet spec?
A couple of provisos: We are aiming at volume sales to customers who value payload and fuel efficiency. We need to keep the ■■■■ thing cool and very importantly stop it from self combusting the vehicle. In addition we need to be aware of the EU wide 4m height conditions.
Or are we going to concentrate instead on the age old one step at a time approach to getting more dense air in, that air as efficiently and equally distributed as possible between the cylinders and the hot gas out again equally as efficiently, more fuel in (we’d rather it actually be less but that’s not happenning) and burnt as efficiently as possible while preventing anything melting. We can sell this one, it will provide the R&D funds for displacement alterations and new designs.
