Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
■■■■■■■ had several bites at the 1970s 250bhp market, IIRC:
- NHC250- 14 litre(?) N/A
- NT240- I think this is the one christened 250 Turbo
- NT250- later version of above.
- Super 255 (?) 15 litre N/A, fitted to Mk1 Transcons, EG HA3424
- E250 ■■ Derated E290, as fitted to Mk2 Transcons. Can’t remember its ■■■■■■■ name, or its actual power output.
Which is relevant to the 1980’s and 38t gross from '83 how.
Have you done your homework yet? It won’t go away, you know.
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Didnt they drop the TL in 83 when the weights went up are you slightly in sane or completely. The bloke who upgraded the Eagle was an AEC man who designed the TL 280 was more than adequate at 32 tons 320 didnt become the norm until the late 80’s early 90’sIt wasn’t 280 it was 273 just like it wasn’t 320 it was 311.As Anorak is so keen to point out.
You said the production tooling was knackered.
Now you say the TL12 couldn’t handle 38t which is exactly what I said.Make your mind up which is it that you mean…The same 38t which was foreseeable in 1980.
So the RR could handle anything from 265 to 311 then and more later.Remind me why do we need the TL12 and why lumber the Roadtrain with it at all.
Why flog off RR instead of giving it to Leyland.
We’re not arguing about 320 it’s the 273 which is the issue which more supposedly didn’t become the ‘norm’ until ‘late 1980’s’.But you also said after the weights went up in 1983.Which is it.
32t went out within 3 years after the introduction of the Roadtrain.Why do we need any so called bs ‘norm’ anyway when the RR covered all bases from 265 to 311.
As for supposedly anything more than 280 ( 273 ) not being the ‘norm’ until 'late ‘80’s’ this says it all and that’s why your piece of junk had to be knocked on the head.All foreseeable in 1979.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … 12-rockets
Sweeper upper.At least that’s better than a know nothing liar talking utter bs who thinks you’re brighter than you are.
Now you are putting words in my mouth i never said the TL12 couldnt handle 38 tons i said they stopped producing it when the 38 ton limit came in .What was the best selling Roadtrain when the TL was dropped , i bet it wasnt a 290 Rolls. You get something stupid in your head and wont let it go like a spoilt child in a playground .What part of Leyland were skint dont you understand
. They weren’t in a position to take over another company they were rationalising the one they had. Where would this ficticious Rolls be made? AEC were closed they couldn’t afford to run the London factory on a small capacity .
So what was the average bhp at 32 tons when the Roadtrain was launched, how did the 265 compare to the TL12 and how did the 290 compare what was the difference in perfomance and productivity these are the things oerators look at when buying new vehicles. I remember reading a post from a well respected member who is sadly no longer with us that he made a very good living out of the TL12 in the vehicles he supplied with maintenance costs at a minimum. So put your sweeping brush down stop playing on your monster truck scalextric and come up with some answers . What was the best selling power range between 75 and 83 and what did it go up to from 83 to 90 taking into account new technology
You said they dropped the TL12 when the weights went up.You also said it was more than adequate at 32t.Why say that unless you believe it and think that it’s relevant.
Are you seriously suggesting that Leyland lumbered the Roadtrain with the TL12 or nothing in 1980.
Knowing that the production machinery was knackered and all based on an asessment of power needs as they stood in 1975.With the move to 38t being a formality and when the Eagle covered all bases between 265 - 300 + anyway.
You’re talking as though the Eagle had no lower power options.All of which is total unadulterated bs and you know it.When it’s range went from 265 to more than 300 so covered more bases than the TL12.
Why would anyone want to do that when Leyland could have been handed and taken RR diesels in house for no charge.
In addition to the fact that even the 340 RR was still witheld from the UK spec sales options list after the move to 38t.
It’s clear that your idol Thatcher the milk snatcher didn’t want to tread on DAF’s toes in the form of competing with the DKS and the 3300.
Carryfast:
You obviously still don’t believe that BMEP = Specific Torque nothing more nothing less.At least tell it like it is.
It is is exactly what it says it is. If you used the term “Specific Torque”, in any engineering office, you would be regarded as a bit of an interloper, at the very least. BMEP is common parlance. If you could do schoolboy maths, you would be able to follow the derivations I have posted for you, which define it as what it says it is, and what everyone knows it to be. In your own garbled “analysis” of the Leyland versus the RR engines, you are effectively saying F=P.A, where P is BMEP and A is bore area. You are actually using BMEP as actual pressure, then drawing your simplistic conclusion from that alone. Whatever waffle you attempt to cloak it in, anyone who aspires to any sort of technical competence can see what you have done. It is there, many times over, in black and white.
Carryfast:
Why didn’t the government want the 340 put in UK market vehicles.
Who said the Government had any say what engine ratings should go in which vehicle? Do you not think they had better things to do, than meddle with lorry specifications?
The 340 Eagle was fitted to the 17.34 Roadtrain, which was launched in 1983, IIRC. Thatcher announced it in the House of Commons, while twirling her knickers around above her head.
Carryfast:
It’s obvious that the sell out was planned much earlier in the day than 1988 and the government didn’t want Leyland treading on DAF’s toes in DAF’s stated largest UK market.
But they did want just enough sales to get the T45’s development budget back.
LOL.
You still won’t answer the technical questions I asked, even the bog simple multiple choice ones. I’ll keep asking them.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
You obviously still don’t believe that BMEP = Specific Torque nothing more nothing less.At least tell it like it is.
It is is exactly what it says it is. If you used the term “Specific Torque”, in any engineering office, you would be regarded as a bit of an interloper, at the very least. BMEP is common parlance. If you could do schoolboy maths, you would be able to follow the derivations I have posted for you, which define it as what it says it is, and what everyone knows it to be. In your own garbled “analysis” of the Leyland versus the RR engines, you are effectively saying F=P.A, where P is BMEP and A is bore area. You are actually using BMEP as actual pressure, then drawing your simplistic conclusion from that alone. Whatever waffle you attempt to cloak it in, anyone who aspires to any sort of technical competence can see what you have done. It is there, many times over, in black and white.
Carryfast:
Why didn’t the government want the 340 put in UK market vehicles.Who said the Government had any say what engine ratings should go in which vehicle? Do you not think they had better things to do, than meddle with lorry specifications?
The 340 Eagle was fitted to the 17.34 Roadtrain, which was launched in 1983, IIRC. Thatcher announced it in the House of Commons, while twirling her knickers around above her head.
Carryfast:
It’s obvious that the sell out was planned much earlier in the day than 1988 and the government didn’t want Leyland treading on DAF’s toes in DAF’s stated largest UK market.
But they did want just enough sales to get the T45’s development budget back.LOL.
You still won’t answer the technical questions I asked, even the bog simple multiple choice ones. I’ll keep asking them.
I did the simple ‘derivations’ which turn specific torque into BMEP for what its worth.
What is torque per litre if it isn’t specific torque in just the same pay that hp per litre is specific power.
You still haven’t provided your figures for the Eagle v TL12 going by your silly method.Whereas I have.
It’s clear that there was a typical time lag between a UK listed 340 powered version v Euro export notably French market versions.The 340 engine wasn’t launched until 1984.
The same old MO don’t do anything which would over shadow the foreign competition’s timing.It being clear that Leyland didn’t want to out do DAF in its all important UK market at any point whether with the 320 RR in 1979 or the 340 in 1984.Which leaves the question why bother with the TL12 at all in the T45.
I answered your questions here.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=166321&start=1170#p2717570
The truth is you didn’t want to dare to challenge my answers.Just as you haven’t dared to challenge 100 lbft per litre = 246 psi BMEP.
As I said you seem to have problems with reading whether numbers or plain English when it suits you.
[zb]
anorak:
The 340 Eagle was fitted to the 17.34 Roadtrain, which was launched in 1983
Meanwhile back in the real world of Thatcher’s land of sabotage and sell out and contrary to the lies of her Party faithful like Anorak.
It took around two years to fit an engine which RR had available in 1984.Brit customers would have to wait even longer.
How convenient in DAF’s largest European market.
The same DAF that within a couple of years she felt the need to personally hand over Leyland to her Dutch PM counterpart.
Carryfast:
…
I answered your questions here.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=166321&start=1170#p2717570…
Oh dear. That was a multiple choice test, and you answered all of the questions with the usual display of floral bleating. Fail. Surely you have done multiple choice tests before? They even use them as part of the driving test nowadays, so it should not be too difficult.
Let’s make it even simpler:
To make it simpler still, you have the use of the following vocabulary: Yes; No; Higher; Lower. Only one word answers are allowable.
You can’t fail- can you?
Yes he can it’ll take about another 2 pages though 
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
…
I answered your questions here.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=166321&start=1170#p2717570…
Oh dear. That was a multiple choice test, and you answered all of the questions with the usual display of floral bleating. Fail. Surely you have done multiple choice tests before? They even use them as part of the driving test nowadays, so it should not be too difficult.
Let’s make it even simpler:
- If you have an engine, like the TL12 or the RR 290L, and you want to increase the peak torque, by altering mechanical things on it. Is this possible?
- Does increasing the peak torque increase the load on the cylinder head bolts?
- If you then increase the stroke of the engine, but keep the peak torque the same, using your mechanical skills, what effect does that have on the load on the head bolts?
To make it simpler still, you have the use of the following vocabulary: Yes; No; Higher; Lower. Only one word answers are allowable.
You can’t fail- can you?
You want a yes no answer to questions like a ‘bigger fire’.'WTF was that supposed to mean.
Now asking similar bs like ‘altering mechanical things’ or does increasing the torque of the engine increase the load on the head fastenings.Yes obviously if that means by way of more cylinder pressure to do it.
No if it’s just by way of more leverage or more piston area.
You can’t even get your head around the idea of 43% specific torque deficit x 7% leverage deficit and 2.5% piston area v leverage deficit.
Why are you continuing to ignore end bearing loads in both the case of using more piston area and/or more cylinder pressure.
You just ain’t going to get a yes or no answer to your bs questions.Altering mechanical things either means more stroke or more piston area.Everything else comes down to more cylinder pressure that means more head fastening loads.
While I’m still waiting for a yes or no answer to do you agree that 100 lbft per litre = 246 psi BMEP ?.Yes or no.
If no then give us your figure.If yes then why do I need algebra to count 2.464.
What can you expect from someone who is trying to make the case that the 12.4 litre TL12 was the right engine to put in the Roadtrain in 1980 made on worn out production tooling.When they had a 12.1 litre one covering every option from 265 - 300 hp + for the taking.
stargazer148:
Yes he can it’ll take about another 2 pages though
So why don’t you answer his questions.
Like increasing torque by altering ‘mechanical things’.
What would that be other than adding more leverage, more piston area, or creating more cylinder pressure.
More piston area means more end bearing loading and more cylinder pressure means more head fastening loading and more end bearing loading.
More leverage doesn’t.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
…
I answered your questions here.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=166321&start=1170#p2717570…
Oh dear. That was a multiple choice test, and you answered all of the questions with the usual display of floral bleating. Fail. Surely you have done multiple choice tests before? They even use them as part of the driving test nowadays, so it should not be too difficult.
Let’s make it even simpler:
- If you have an engine, like the TL12 or the RR 290L, and you want to increase the peak torque, by altering mechanical things on it. Is this possible?
- Does increasing the peak torque increase the load on the cylinder head bolts?
- If you then increase the stroke of the engine, but keep the peak torque the same, using your mechanical skills, what effect does that have on the load on the head bolts?
To make it simpler still, you have the use of the following vocabulary: Yes; No; Higher; Lower. Only one word answers are allowable.
You can’t fail- can you?
You want a yes no answer to questions like a ‘bigger fire’.'WTF was that supposed to mean.
Now asking similar bs like ‘altering mechanical things’ or does increasing the torque of the engine increase the load on the head fastenings.Yes obviously if that means by way of more cylinder pressure to do it.
No if it’s just by way of more leverage or more piston area.You can’t even get your head around the idea of 43% specific torque deficit x 7% leverage deficit and 2.5% piston area v leverage deficit.
Why are you continuing to ignore end bearing loads in both the case of using more piston area and/or more cylinder pressure.
You just ain’t going to get a yes or no answer to your bs questions.Altering mechanical things either means more stroke or more piston area.Everything else comes down to more cylinder pressure that means more head fastening loads.
While I’m still waiting for a yes or no answer to do you agree that 100 lbft per litre = 246 psi BMEP ?.Yes or no.
If no then give us your figure.If yes then why do I need algebra to count 2.464.
What can you expect from someone who is trying to make the case that the 12.4 litre TL12 was the right engine to put in the Roadtrain in 1980 made on worn out production tooling.When they had a 12.1 litre one covering every option from 265 - 300 hp + for the taking.
Stop waffling and answer the questions. They won’t bite you. You might even learn something.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
- If you have an engine, like the TL12 or the RR 290L, and you want to increase the peak torque, by altering mechanical things on it. Is this possible?
- Does increasing the peak torque increase the load on the cylinder head bolts?
- If you then increase the stroke of the engine, but keep the peak torque the same, using your mechanical skills, what effect does that have on the load on the head bolts?
To make it simpler still, you have the use of the following vocabulary: Yes; No; Higher; Lower. Only one word answers are allowable.
You can’t fail- can you?
You want a yes no answer to questions like a ‘bigger fire’.'WTF was that supposed to mean.
Now asking similar bs like ‘altering mechanical things’ or does increasing the torque of the engine increase the load on the head fastenings.Yes obviously if that means by way of more cylinder pressure to do it.
No if it’s just by way of more leverage or more piston area.You can’t even get your head around the idea of 43% specific torque deficit x 7% leverage deficit and 2.5% piston area v leverage deficit.
Why are you continuing to ignore end bearing loads in both the case of using more piston area and/or more cylinder pressure.
You just ain’t going to get a yes or no answer to your bs questions.Altering mechanical things either means more stroke or more piston area.Everything else comes down to more cylinder pressure that means more head fastening loads.
While I’m still waiting for a yes or no answer to do you agree that 100 lbft per litre = 246 psi BMEP ?.Yes or no.
If no then give us your figure.If yes then why do I need algebra to count 2.464.
What can you expect from someone who is trying to make the case that the 12.4 litre TL12 was the right engine to put in the Roadtrain in 1980 made on worn out production tooling.When they had a 12.1 litre one covering every option from 265 - 300 hp + for the taking.
Stop waffling and answer the questions. They won’t bite you. You might even learn something.
I’ve more than answered your questions.
Cylinder Pressure acting on the Piston Area x Leverage makes the torque.
Only more leverage means more torque without loading up the end bearings/head fastenings.
More cylinder pressure will load up the head fastenings and the end bearings.
More piston area will also load up the end bearings.
Now you answer my questions for once.You’re the one who obviously needs to learn something.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Didnt they drop the TL in 83 when the weights went up are you slightly in sane or completely. The bloke who upgraded the Eagle was an AEC man who designed the TL 280 was more than adequate at 32 tons 320 didnt become the norm until the late 80’s early 90’sIt wasn’t 280 it was 273 just like it wasn’t 320 it was 311.As Anorak is so keen to point out.
You said the production tooling was knackered.
Now you say the TL12 couldn’t handle 38t which is exactly what I said.Make your mind up which is it that you mean…The same 38t which was foreseeable in 1980.
So the RR could handle anything from 265 to 311 then and more later.Remind me why do we need the TL12 and why lumber the Roadtrain with it at all.
Why flog off RR instead of giving it to Leyland.
We’re not arguing about 320 it’s the 273 which is the issue which more supposedly didn’t become the ‘norm’ until ‘late 1980’s’.But you also said after the weights went up in 1983.Which is it.
32t went out within 3 years after the introduction of the Roadtrain.Why do we need any so called bs ‘norm’ anyway when the RR covered all bases from 265 to 311.
As for supposedly anything more than 280 ( 273 ) not being the ‘norm’ until 'late ‘80’s’ this says it all and that’s why your piece of junk had to be knocked on the head.All foreseeable in 1979.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … 12-rockets
Sweeper upper.At least that’s better than a know nothing liar talking utter bs who thinks you’re brighter than you are.
Now you are putting words in my mouth i never said the TL12 couldnt handle 38 tons i said they stopped producing it when the 38 ton limit came in .What was the best selling Roadtrain when the TL was dropped , i bet it wasnt a 290 Rolls. You get something stupid in your head and wont let it go like a spoilt child in a playground .What part of Leyland were skint dont you understand
. They weren’t in a position to take over another company they were rationalising the one they had. Where would this ficticious Rolls be made? AEC were closed they couldn’t afford to run the London factory on a small capacity .
So what was the average bhp at 32 tons when the Roadtrain was launched, how did the 265 compare to the TL12 and how did the 290 compare what was the difference in perfomance and productivity these are the things oerators look at when buying new vehicles. I remember reading a post from a well respected member who is sadly no longer with us that he made a very good living out of the TL12 in the vehicles he supplied with maintenance costs at a minimum. So put your sweeping brush down stop playing on your monster truck scalextric and come up with some answers . What was the best selling power range between 75 and 83 and what did it go up to from 83 to 90 taking into account new technologyYou said they dropped the TL12 when the weights went up.You also said it was more than adequate at 32t.Why say that unless you believe it and think that it’s relevant.
Are you seriously suggesting that Leyland lumbered the Roadtrain with the TL12 or nothing in 1980.
Knowing that the production machinery was knackered and all based on an asessment of power needs as they stood in 1975.With the move to 38t being a formality and when the Eagle covered all bases between 265 - 300 + anyway.
You’re talking as though the Eagle had no lower power options.All of which is total unadulterated bs and you know it.When it’s range went from 265 to more than 300 so covered more bases than the TL12.Why would anyone want to do that when Leyland could have been handed and taken RR diesels in house for no charge.
In addition to the fact that even the 340 RR was still witheld from the UK spec sales options list after the move to 38t.
It’s clear that your idol Thatcher the milk snatcher didn’t want to tread on DAF’s toes in the form of competing with the DKS and the 3300.
So the Roadtrain is launched a 32 ton unit produced by Leyland with an AEC engine. They didn’t offer the RR or ■■■■■■■ for that matter or a Fuller or Synchro option or a full size sleeper but lets blame the TL12 for this. The engine was a 273 running at 32 tons. Not every haulier had faith in the RR diesels they had a bad reputation and the die hard ■■■■■■■ and Gardner men wouldn’t touch them . But Leyland who were rationalising the company should take on another load of employees and build the engines themselves with no money for development so how would that work , bearing in mind Foden, ERF and SA wouldnt want to buy engines from a direct competitor. So Leyland would end up with another load of trouble they didnt need when all they had to do was offer the RR has an option which they did.I am sure Mrs Thatcher would have been well up on her stroke measurements but probably more interested in how much of tax payers money had been wasted on an out of control group that hemmoraged money at an alarming rate mainly due to militant shop stewards. Her priority was to the British tax paying public not left wing extremists. Why Did Volvo carry on with the F10 at 38 tons , because they could sell them . Business only works if you have customers and customer demand is what you need to run a successful one.
You say that the imminent 38 ton limit was nailed on in 1980 , really just like the 40 ton limit was in 68. All those British manufacturers that produced 6 wheeler units all in vein. I think the 38 ton limit was supposed to be more 40 tons but it wasnt agreed and they settled at 38 tons in 83. Nothing is certain in this world apart from your utter BS posts with absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theories that smack of someone who spent too much of his youth alone. Were you bullied at school?
^^^^^^^^ Makes complete sense to me…
dave docwra:
^^^^^^^^ Makes complete sense to me…
Problem is Dave he wouldn’t know sense if it hit him in the face
Carryfast:
You want a yes no answer to questions like a ‘bigger fire’.'WTF was that supposed to mean.Now asking similar bs like ‘altering mechanical things’ or does increasing the torque of the engine increase the load on the head fastenings.Yes obviously if that means by way of more cylinder pressure to do it.
No if it’s just by way of more leverage or more piston area.You can’t even get your head around the idea of 43% specific torque deficit x 7% leverage deficit and 2.5% piston area v leverage deficit.
Why are you continuing to ignore end bearing loads in both the case of using more piston area and/or more cylinder pressure.
You just ain’t going to get a yes or no answer to your bs questions.Altering mechanical things either means more stroke or more piston area.Everything else comes down to more cylinder pressure that means more head fastening loads.
While I’m still waiting for a yes or no answer to do you agree that 100 lbft per litre = 246 psi BMEP ?.Yes or no.
If no then give us your figure.If yes then why do I need algebra to count 2.464.
What can you expect from someone who is trying to make the case that the 12.4 litre TL12 was the right engine to put in the Roadtrain in 1980 made on worn out production tooling.When they had a 12.1 litre one covering every option from 265 - 300 hp + for the taking.
Just discovered this. I feel like a tramp who has just found an unopened packet of crisps in a bin.
Now asking similar bs like ‘altering mechanical things’ or does increasing the torque of the engine increase the load on the head fastenings.Yes obviously if that means by way of more cylinder pressure to do it.
No if it’s just by way of more leverage or more piston area.
So, if the pressure remains the same, but the piston area increases, there is no increase in the load on the head bolts?
ramone:
So the Roadtrain is launched a 32 ton unit produced by Leyland with an AEC engine. They didn’t offer the RR or ■■■■■■■ for that matter or a Fuller or Synchro option or a full size sleeper but lets blame the TL12 for this. The engine was a 273 running at 32 tons. Not every haulier had faith in the RR diesels they had a bad reputation and the die hard ■■■■■■■ and Gardner men wouldn’t touch them . But Leyland who were rationalising the company should take on another load of employees and build the engines themselves with no money for development so how would that work , bearing in mind Foden, ERF and SA wouldnt want to buy engines from a direct competitor. So Leyland would end up with another load of trouble they didnt need when all they had to do was offer the RR has an option which they did.I am sure Mrs Thatcher would have been well up on her stroke measurements but probably more interested in how much of tax payers money had been wasted on an out of control group that hemmoraged money at an alarming rate mainly due to militant shop stewards. Her priority was to the British tax paying public not left wing extremists. Why Did Volvo carry on with the F10 at 38 tons , because they could sell them . Business only works if you have customers and customer demand is what you need to run a successful one.
You say that the imminent 38 ton limit was nailed on in 1980 , really just like the 40 ton limit was in 68. All those British manufacturers that produced 6 wheeler units all in vein. I think the 38 ton limit was supposed to be more 40 tons but it wasnt agreed and they settled at 38 tons in 83. Nothing is certain in this world apart from your utter BS posts with absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theories that smack of someone who spent too much of his youth alone. Were you bullied at school?
Tell us more about what suddenly changed regarding all those ‘die hard’ RR haters in 1983 when the TL12 was ditched.Either they suddenly realised the error of their ways or as usual you’re talking utter bs.
A product with a supposed bad reliability record.That Scammell obviously didn’t agree with among others to the point where this ‘unreliable’ piece of junk got into the posession of Perkins who like everyone else ran with it up to 400 hp.
Remind me again what happened to the TL12.
[zb]
anorak:
So, if the pressure remains the same, but the piston area increases, there is no increase in the load on the head bolts?
Which part of if the cylinder pressure remains the same, ‘because’ the piston area increases, there will obviously be no increase in the load on the head fastenings, but there will be a corresponding increased load on the end bearings, didn’t you understand.The clue is in the word ‘same’.
In the case of the TL12 the piston area increase was less than the Eagle’s leverage advantage so you’ve got both problems.Higher cylinder pressures and more load on the end bearings for the equivalent torque output.
That’s why manufacturers are spending loads of money on longer throw crank shafts rather than a few millimetres larger pistons.
ramone:
dave docwra:
^^^^^^^^ Makes complete sense to me…Problem is Dave he wouldn’t know sense if it hit him in the face
What actually happened to Leyland shows your sense.The difference is that the government knew why it was doing it.To sabotage the firm.But you obviously think it was all good engineering decisions.Like all of Thatcher’s party faithful.
Edit.
Fair enough.
Let’s also say that the extra force, created by the larger piston, still has to be contained by the same head fastenings area just as in the case of more cylinder pressure, regardless of being spread across more head area. 
That helps the case for the TL12 v Eagle how.
The leverage deficit is still there so you’ve only got the force that you can create on the con rod instead also obviously acting against the head bolts regardless. 
Is that our dear friend CF’s reverse bleeper I can hear in the background ?