Yes we all agree now rev up and ■■■■ off ! 
Bewick:
Yes we all agree now rev up and [zb] off !
PMSL
Quote Carryfast:
…“DAF DK 11.6 v XE 12.6 says it all in the Leyland context and ironically shows that they weren’t happy with the 11.6’s architecture.”…
That’s a retraction from what you’ve been saying for the last however many years in numerous posts on different threads. According to you BL should have developed the 680 instead of the AV 760 because you found that the DAF development of it was so good in the DAF 2800. What you’ve never mentioned is that when DAF turned it into the 11.6 they left the stroke alone, bored it out 3mm and made significant alterations to the cylinder head. The engine went on make 430 bhp in the last of the WS powered CFs and 95s without any stroke increase. It was only at that point that DAF reworked a similar block to increase the stroke from 146 to 158 and oust the ■■■■■■■ for their top of the range 530 model.
This Leyland engine started off as the 1946 Leyland 600 122x139, an engine producing almost exactly the same output in all its settings as the AEC AV 590 did in its various guises. Leyland then increased both bore to 127 and stroke to 146 to increase the output to bring about the 680 - new crank, new piston, same rod. Meanwhile AEC just increased bore size for the 690/1. The resulting engines again proved to be virtually equal.
You have refused to accept that this TL12 engine was ever going to produce more than 270 odd BHP inspite of quoted evidence that it was being tested at a higher rate. Leyland/AEC decided to develop the AV760 and not the Leyland 680, they would not have gone down this route if they could not see potential in persuing it. These men weren’t the fools you like to make out, they had already made design changes to the oil and cooling system, they had intimate knowledge of their product and what it was possible to do with it. If they had doubts and the engine was the piece of junk you make it out to be then they would not have bothered to make the changes that had already been done. Leyland had reworked the 600 engine as described above, the option was open to them to do whatever they chose : a longer throw crank and different piston, even a reduction in bore size if they so wished, back to the 691 dimensions. We don’t know what they might have chosen to do, as it stood they needed to redesign their piston which is exactly what Leyland had done. You however have dismissed their work as a piece of junk based upon your self proclaimed superior knowledge while maintaining that algebra is crap and all that is needed is 2.464 when Torque x 2.464 / Capacity = Specific Torque is algebra, you fill in the numbers.
Throughout the many discussions relating to AEC engines you have continued to refer to them as pieces of junk and repeatedly insulted and attempted to ridicule in the most objectionable manner their work and the engineers who designed, developed and produced the company’s products. For the most part they accomplished this from practical knowledge and experience and calculations using slide rule and trigonometry tables. On the other hand, you when challenged to produce answers, which involve backing up your claims with more than repetition of some same mantra, duck out and attempt to divert the issue or ignore it.
So if you wish your posts to be taken as more than the mere ramblings of a charlatan who considers the whole subject is part of some conspiracy, then define 2.464 in a similar manner, with detailed workings, to the way 150.8 is defined in the link which you had previously used repeated below.
[zb]
anorak:
Apart from the political intrigue, are you happy to agree that the compressive loads on the head bolts and rod end bearings are proportional to the torque output?
Are you happy to agree that, the longer the stroke, the lower those loads are?
TENSILE loads on the head bolts and compressive loads on the ends which are then transmitted to the mains.Effectively less stroke means trying to make more torque at the flywheel by trying to blow the head off and pushing the crankshaft through the sump by firstly crushing the end bearings against the rod and crankshaft to do it.
The more leverage, in the form of stroke, the less of those forces you’ll need to impose on that component chain, for the equivalent torque output.
Agreed.
Remind me why are we arguing that the TL12 could ever have matched the Eagle in mimimising those forces for the equivalent torque output. 
cav551:
Quote Carryfast:…“DAF DK 11.6 v XE 12.6 says it all in the Leyland context and ironically shows that they weren’t happy with the 11.6’s architecture.”…
That’s a retraction from what you’ve been saying for the last however many years in numerous posts on different threads. According to you BL should have developed the 680 instead of the AV 760 because you found that the DAF development of it was so good in the DAF 2800
I clearly said 680/DK was better than the 760.Obviously the XE was better than DK and MX better than XE for exactly the same consistent reason.More leverage = better.
I also said that a TL12 using the 590’s bore stroke ratio would have trumped them all probably if not likely including the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ might provide a smoking gun as to one of the reasons why it didn’t happen.How difficult could a new engine block casting with a deeper wider skirt have been.No need to even change the cylinder centre line spacing.Why have you selectively ignored that.
Have a look at the Scammell Crusader topic.
In addition to numerous other photos of Crusader wreckers and STGO applications in addition to many of the RR S85 Foden gritters like I drove converted to wreckers.All proving that if you wanted something with lugging power the go to choice was RR not TL12 or even DAF DK.
The same point made with gingerfold led to loads of irrelevant stuff concerning sales figures.
I’d guess the Thames Trader also outsold the Crusader.Not much use if you want something that can pull a house down for minimum stress.
Why are people arguing about something which is so clearly obvious.The RR was the better motor.
Which just leaves the questions of the how and why regarding the use of the TL12 in the Roadtrain v RR.
cav551:
You have refused to accept that this TL12 engine was ever going to produce more than 270 odd BHP inspite of quoted evidence that it was being tested at a higher rate. Leyland/AEC decided to develop the AV760 and not the Leyland 680, they would not have gone down this route if they could not see potential in persuing it. These men weren’t the fools you like to make out, they had already made design changes to the oil and cooling system, they had intimate knowledge of their product and what it was possible to do with it. If they had doubts and the engine was the piece of junk you make it out to be then they would not have bothered to make the changes that had already been done. Leyland had reworked the 600 engine as described above, the option was open to them to do whatever they chose : a longer throw crank and different piston, even a reduction in bore size if they so wished, back to the 691 dimensions. We don’t know what they might have chosen to do, as it stood they needed to redesign their piston which is exactly what Leyland had done. You however have dismissed their work as a piece of junk based upon your self proclaimed superior knowledge while maintaining that algebra is crap and all that is needed is 2.464 when Torque x 2.464 / Capacity = Specific Torque is algebra, you fill in the numbers.Throughout the many discussions relating to AEC engines you have continued to refer to them as pieces of junk and repeatedly insulted and attempted to ridicule in the most objectionable manner their work and the engineers who designed, developed and produced the company’s products. For the most part they accomplished this from practical knowledge and experience and calculations using slide rule and trigonometry tables. On the other hand, you when challenged to produce answers, which involve backing up your claims with more than repetition of some same mantra, duck out and attempt to divert the issue or ignore it.
So if you wish your posts to be taken as more than the mere ramblings of a charlatan who considers the whole subject is part of some conspiracy, then define 2.464 in a similar manner, with detailed workings, to the way 150.8 is defined in the link which you had previously used repeated below.
I’ve clearly referred to the TL12 being used in the Roadtrain as a piece of junk.Which it was compared to the Eagle providing anything from 265-300 + with lots more left after that.
The TL12 might have been ‘tested’ at more than 280 gross but why did they bother if claims that the production machinery was worn out are true and the unarguable fact that it couldn’t possibly have equalled the Eagle without more stress as a result of its leverage deficit.
I’ve clearly stated that even the V8 would have worked if derated for use in 6 wheelers.
As for the figures the clue is that in no case do they explain how and why the constants work.
People who are interested in engine design only need to know that they work.
We ain’t all bleedin mathmaticians.Which in my case couldn’t be further from it my maths ability is abysmal.
The fact is those figures work and they also prove that BMEP is nothing more nothing less than specific torque at the flywheel.That’s all it is.
Which leaves the question of why would you want to use less leverage to maximise torque output.When that means proportionately more stress on the head joint and end bearings.
Carryfast:
ramone:
The RR takeover is a figment of CFs immagination not a real thing i would doubt very much that it was even considered when the name of the game when Edwards took over was rationalisation and cost cutting .I never said it was considered that’s my point.
Rationalisation doesn’t mean trashing and closing the firm to the advantage of the foreign competition.
It means doing stuff like knocking a no hoper motor on the head and bringing in a free and better one.Which part of there was no ‘cost’ in doing that because the government/taxpayer owned both firms didn’t you understand.
Picture the scene at Scanmmell when Edwardes told them there’d be no RR in the T45.Oh and the government has given it away to Vickers anyway.
WTF would have been the justified united cry.You’re taking us all out with this piece of junk.
You know the same piece of junk that they’d effectively refused to use since it was introduced.Followed by we told you so in 1982/3.
You really dont get it do you , why would a company that was being rationalized take on something they didnt need, they had enough staffing problems without adding to them . They could order off the shelf as needed so why take it over and incur another headache . RR supplied Foden ERF and SA to name three , would those companies want to buy off Leyland , You are the only one on here that said the TL12 was a no hoper and junk but have nothing to back it up in service but there you go.
The 680 is now thrown in the ring ffs , the Daf 11.6 had very little in comparison to the original 680 block Daf allegedly bought the rights to produce from Leyland many years before. Why if the 680 was a better engine did Leyland go with the 760 instead of the 680 to produce the new engine (TL12) Why didn`t Leyland improve on the 680 just like Daf did
and produce a 380 or more from it . Strange that they decided against it
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Apart from the political intrigue, are you happy to agree that the compressive loads on the head bolts and rod end bearings are proportional to the torque output?
Are you happy to agree that, the longer the stroke, the lower those loads are?TENSILE loads on the head bolts and compressive loads on the ends which are then transmitted to the mains.Effectively less stroke means trying to make more torque at the flywheel by trying to blow the head off and pushing the crankshaft through the sump by firstly crushing the end bearings against the rod and crankshaft to do it.
The more leverage, in the form of stroke, the less of those forces you’ll need to impose on that component chain, for the equivalent torque output.
Agreed.Remind me why are we arguing that the TL12 could ever have matched the Eagle in mimimising those forces for the equivalent torque output.
We seem to agree that the force is proportional to the torque divided by the stroke:
F= k x T/S, where k is the constant of proportionality.
Now consider that the capacity V of the engine is S x A, where A is the piston area:
V= S x A, or S = V/A; 1/S=A/V
Combining the two dead simple equations above, we have F=k x T x A/V, which is :
F=k x T/V x A
Now remember P= F/A, where P = cylinder pressure. Rearranging, F= P x A.
Notice how P = k x T/V
That’s right- “Specific Torque” as you insist on calling it, = Pressure. That is your argument, treated to some logical deduction that a child would do. It is the only argument that you have, and you have been arguing “BMEP is not pressure”. LOLOL.
If other TNUK members consider this silly- I do- just go back a few pages, where I showed the standard derivation of BMEP, which all students and apprentices learn, within six weeks of starting the job. Of course, a better calculation would involve measured peak pressures for the engines concerned, but you ain’t going to get that sort of commonsense on this thread.
Based on CF’s BMEP-and-nothing-else comparison, the Roadtrain’s TL12 has a 7% higher mean cylinder load than the RR290L. 12 years later, or whatever it was, all engines were making 40% more torque, from the same capacity, which gives us the final version of the RR Eagle, with its 1200lbft. Another 12 years down the line, the same engines were making another 40% more BMEP, on top of that. A 7% difference in compressive loads is insignificant. If Leyland had continued with production of its own engines, it would have matched RR without worrying about a nothing detail like that. This is, of course, based on the fine body of knowledge contained in this 40 pages of almost perfect crap. If there is other evidence that the TL12 could not have been developed further, it is not here, at all. This thread is the ramblings of an ignoramus, nothing else.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Apart from the political intrigue, are you happy to agree that the compressive loads on the head bolts and rod end bearings are proportional to the torque output?
Are you happy to agree that, the longer the stroke, the lower those loads are?TENSILE loads on the head bolts and compressive loads on the ends which are then transmitted to the mains.Effectively less stroke means trying to make more torque at the flywheel by trying to blow the head off and pushing the crankshaft through the sump by firstly crushing the end bearings against the rod and crankshaft to do it.
The more leverage, in the form of stroke, the less of those forces you’ll need to impose on that component chain, for the equivalent torque output.
Agreed.Remind me why are we arguing that the TL12 could ever have matched the Eagle in mimimising those forces for the equivalent torque output.
We seem to agree that the force is proportional to the torque divided by the stroke:
F= k x T/S, where k is the constant of proportionality.
Now consider that the capacity V of the engine is S x A, where A is the piston area:
V= S x A, or S = V/A; 1/S=A/VCombining the two dead simple equations above, we have F=k x T x A/V, which is :
F=k x T/V x ANow remember P= F/A, where P = cylinder pressure. Rearranging, F= P x A.
Notice how P = k x T/V
That’s right- “Specific Torque” as you insist on calling it, = Pressure. That is your argument, treated to some logical deduction that a child would do. It is the only argument that you have, and you have been arguing “BMEP is not pressure”. LOLOL.
If other TNUK members consider this silly- I do- just go back a few pages, where I showed the standard derivation of BMEP, which all students and apprentices learn, within six weeks of starting the job. Of course, a better calculation would involve measured peak pressures for the engines concerned, but you ain’t going to get that sort of commonsense on this thread.
Based on CF’s BMEP-and-nothing-else comparison, the Roadtrain’s TL12 has a 7% higher mean cylinder load than the RR290L. 12 years later, or whatever it was, all engines were making 40% more torque, from the same capacity, which gives us the final version of the RR Eagle, with its 1200lbft. Another 12 years down the line, the same engines were making another 40% more BMEP, on top of that. A 7% difference in compressive loads is insignificant. If Leyland had continued with production of its own engines, it would have matched RR without worrying about a nothing detail like that. This is, of course, based on the fine body of knowledge contained in this 40 pages of almost perfect crap. If there is other evidence that the TL12 could not have been developed further, it is not here, at all. This thread is the ramblings of an ignoramus, nothing else.
If you agree that more stroke reduces the amount of force required for the equivalent torque output how does specific torque supposedly then mean cylinder pressure.It doesn’t and it can’t because it doesn’t take account of leverage or lack of it.
The only place that more stroke means more ‘pressure’/load is at the main bearings.Not the con rod, piston, or cylinder head unlike using more force and less leverage.
The rest of your bs is as credible as that simple deduction.
No surprise that nowhere in your contradictory zb do you make the link between stroke and leverage.
The variable of leverage proving that the Torque figure doesn’t mean cylinder pressure nor can it.That’s what I call an ignoramus.
7% of a lot is a lot by the time that extra force is translated into the small areas of head bolts and end bearing surfaces.
That’s why just about every engine manufacturer of note went on a stroke increase spree.While your reference to a few shows that either you’re a liar or you have cognitive issues.
ramone:
Carryfast:
Rationalisation doesn’t mean trashing and closing the firm to the advantage of the foreign competition.It means doing stuff like knocking a no hoper motor on the head and bringing in a free and better one.Which part of there was no ‘cost’ in doing that because the government/taxpayer owned both firms didn’t you understand.
Picture the scene at Scanmmell when Edwardes told them there’d be no RR in the T45.Oh and the government has given it away to Vickers anyway.
WTF would have been the justified united cry.You’re taking us all out with this piece of junk.
You know the same piece of junk that they’d effectively refused to use since it was introduced.Followed by we told you so in 1982/3.
You really don
t get it do you , why would a company that was being rationalized take on something they didnt need
Oh wait they did ‘need’ a decent engine you know one producing more than 300 hp and with 100 lbft per litre and 400 hp potential in it without breaking and not made on worn out production tooling and the TL12 obviously wasn’t it.
So let’s give the former away and make the TL12 the no option choice in the Roadtrain when it mattered at launch.What could possibly go wrong.
While we’re on the subject:
Carryfast:
150.8 x 1,216 lbft = 183,372.8 / 742.65 ci = 246 psi or 16.9 Bar BMEP1216 lbft /12.17 litres = 99.9 lbft per litre x 2.464 = 246 psi or 16.9 Bar BMEP.
Which part of those equations don’t just mean expressing specific torque.
As an abstract hypothetical pressure measurement which doesn’t actually exist anywhere at any time within the engine nor does 2 x that figure mean anything at all.
…
What sort of idiot uses litres, lb, ft and inches in the same expression? Use one unit for each variable, if you can’t understand the simplicity of the SI units that mathematicians, scientists and engineers have been using, as a matter of course, for a century.
The factor 2.464 means nothing, and is prone to error. I have done the calculations properly, and those other numbers give a BMEP of 247 psi, not 246. Now I’m going to convert the silly figures into a proper system of consistent units- inches and pounds:
1216 lbft= 1216 x 12 lb.in = 14592 lb.in
12.17 litres= 12.17 x 61 cu in. =742.37 cu.in
247 psi = k x 14592/742.37 = 19.66, where k is the constant of proportionality, so:
k= 247/19.66= 12.57
Now divide 12.57 by 4, and tell us what the resulting number is.
Carryfast:
Blah…Did you actually read the two different equations which reached the same result of BMEP no need for Pi in those equations.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Rationalisation doesn’t mean trashing and closing the firm to the advantage of the foreign competition.It means doing stuff like knocking a no hoper motor on the head and bringing in a free and better one.Which part of there was no ‘cost’ in doing that because the government/taxpayer owned both firms didn’t you understand.
Picture the scene at Scanmmell when Edwardes told them there’d be no RR in the T45.Oh and the government has given it away to Vickers anyway.
WTF would have been the justified united cry.You’re taking us all out with this piece of junk.
You know the same piece of junk that they’d effectively refused to use since it was introduced.Followed by we told you so in 1982/3.
You really don
t get it do you , why would a company that was being rationalized take on something they didnt needOh wait they did ‘need’ a decent engine you know one producing more than 300 hp and with 100 lbft per litre and 400 hp potential in it without breaking and not made on worn out production tooling and the TL12 obviously wasn’t it.
So let’s give the former away and make the TL12 the no option choice in the Roadtrain when it mattered at launch.What could possibly go wrong.
They offered the RR and ■■■■■■■ when the TL was dropped ffs why would they take RR on when they didnt need to and not everyone wanted a RR some wanted a ■■■■■■■
Carryfast:
Blah…
7% of a lot is a lot by the time that extra force is translated into the small areas of head bolts and end bearing surfaces.
…
Errr… it’s 7% more, as in 7%. Those loads doubled across the board, over the next 25 years. 7% is nothing. LOL
Those deductions I showed you are correct. You can’t argue with maths- it’s either right or wrong. A mathematical proof is perfect, beyond waffle. Your own statements were proved to be 100% contradictory. You said that BMEP is not pressure, then said BMEP x Area= Force, and used that as the sole foundation for your stupid assertions that a 7% change in force will turn an engine into a “piece of junk”.
Your chat is beyond ridicule. The fact that you are still bull[zb]ing proves you are not fit to even think about engines, never mind waste internet space.
Page 43. If anyone else get sick of it, just refer him back to here.
Whoops. Pressed Quote instead of EDit.
[zb]
anorak:
What sort of idiot uses litres, lb, ft and inches in the same expression?
Remind me how many road test reports and engine specs over the decades have used engine size measured in litres and torque measured in lbft.Even your TL12 piece of junk.
Remind me what does the 13 mean in MX13.
paccarpowertrain.com/engines/mx-13/
and what figures have they used for the torque output.
Just like the TL12.
You mean that sort of an idiot.
So if someone gave you a drawing with all sizes stated in metric you’d be zb’d using it to machine anything on an imperial calibrated machine.Now who’s calling who an idiot.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
What sort of idiot uses litres, lb, ft and inches in the same expression?Remind me how many road test reports and engine specs over the decades have used engine size measured in litres and torque measured in lbft.Even your TL12 piece of junk.
Remind me what does the 13 mean in MX13.
paccarpowertrain.com/engines/mx-13/
and what figures have they used for the torque output.
Just like the TL12.
You mean that sort of an idiot.
So if someone gave you a drawing with all sizes stated in metric you’d be zb’d using it to machine anything on an imperial calibrated machine.Now who’s calling who an idiot.
Hahaa! Is that all you’ve got? I actually converted the mish-mash of units into inches and pounds, to make the calculation sensible. Did you divide the constant by 4? What was the result? LOL.
Loads of my metric drawings have been made on imperial machines. On the odd occasion when I’ve had to make my own stuff, I use whatever is in the workshop. The sort of idiot who moans about imperial graduations on machinery, when faced with metric drawings, is the same sort of idiot who pretends he can do calculations, then mixes up feet and inches in the same expression- the sort of idiot who is not allowed in the workshop in the first place, or the design office.
Just swallow it- you’'ve been handed your shortcomings on a plate. Move on, take a lesson from it. End of thread. Freeze it now, please, moderators.
ERF-NGC-European:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
What sort of idiot uses litres, lb, ft and inches in the same expression?Remind me how many road test reports and engine specs over the decades have used engine size measured in litres and torque measured in lbft.Even your TL12 piece of junk.
Remind me what does the 13 mean in MX13.
paccarpowertrain.com/engines/mx-13/
and what figures have they used for the torque output.
Just like the TL12.
You mean that sort of an idiot.
So if someone gave you a drawing with all sizes stated in metric you’d be zb’d using it to machine anything on an imperial calibrated machine.Now who’s calling who an idiot.
Hahaa! Is that all you’ve got? I actually converted the mish-mash of units into inches and pounds, to make the calculation sensible. Did you divide the constant by 4? What was the result? LOL.
Loads of my metric drawings have been made on imperial machines. On the odd occasion when I’ve had to make my own stuff, I use whatever is in the workshop. The sort of idiot who moans about imperial graduations on machinery, when faced with metric drawings, is the same sort of idiot who pretends he can do calculations, then mixes up feet and inches in the same expression- the sort of idiot who is not allowed in the workshop in the first place, or the design office.
Just swallow it- you’'ve been handed your shortcomings on a plate. Move on, take a lesson from it. End of thread. Freeze it now, please, moderators.
And so, through all the length of days, while the Gods forever gaze laconically and implacably down upon the doings of this thread; the angels attend to their finger nails and watch this creation of restless retired souls with detached resignation. They know that hell is other retired truckers, of course. Just when one thought that the days of sharing a hot and smelly cabin with another in our own likeness on an overnight ferry were gone, up pops Trucknet. The beginnings and endings of threads like this are entirely in the hands of posters. The choices are: read, ignore, add, or pass by. We are masters of our own destiny.
Rowena
Bewick:
Yes we all agree now rev up and [zb] off !
Do you think nurse has sedated him Dennis , or just a straight jacket or a padded cell ?
ramone:
Bewick:
Yes we all agree now rev up and [zb] off !Do you think nurse has sedated him Dennis , or just a straight jacket or a padded cell ?
I believe he gets a shot of Horse Tranquilizer when he plays up and at Full Moon it’s the Straight Jacket as well !