[zb]
anorak:
Back to the bore/stroke dogma, without even doing the calculation to verify it (which, I believe, is what started this thread off in the first place).
Remember who started the thread, no way will he complain about off topic antics.
windrush:
The AEC 505 engines we ran were good at throwing fanblades through their radiators as well!Crankshaft dampers: I know Gardner fitted them internally of course as they had plenty of room, but some engine makers used the front pulley instead as a damper with a rubber insert, couldn’t AEC/Leyland have used those to save internal space?
Pete.
The did fit an external damper Pete, AEC just went one stage further.
ramone:
You could be a politician , why don`t you answer the question , what problems in service did the TL12 cause hauliers .
It was economical and reliable and performed well what more would a haulier want?
100 lb/ft per litre and 300 hp +.
Reference CF’s comment about Donald Stokes running Standard Triumph… I think CF has got the timeline wrong.
Quoting a further extract from Bob Fryars’ article.
… Sir Henry Spurrier had of course sacked the standard Motors management (just as he had done at Albion Motors years before) and turned to Stanley Markland (just as he had done before) to turn Standard around. By taking some serious risks, Markland managed to cut large stocks of cars by massive discounts, and start cutting Standard’s losses to manageable proportions. But until a reduction in purchase tax was made in the 1962 April budget that boosted car sales, the Leyland Motor Corporation was in very serious financial difficulty. Chrysler’s proposals to buy a controlling stake in Leyland, tabled in May 1962 had to be taken very seriously under those circumstances, and I do not believe that Spurrier gave any serious thought to ACV at that point.
But once the corner was turned at Standard Triumph the Chrysler offer could be finally turned down that June and Spurrier came round to the view that a ‘merger’ with his principal competitor would put the Leyland Motor Corporation in an almost impregnable position against further take-over bids. So the ‘merger’ with ACV was negotiated through June and July to be concluded in early August 1962. A merger may have been what the ACV Board had in mind. Had they forgotten what had been the fate of the Albion and Standard Triumph managements? A ‘merger’ was not what Sir Henry Spurrier or his acolyte Donald Stokes had in mind.
At AEC there was complete incomprehension and disbelief that the ACV Board could have ever considered such a deal… But at Leyland Donald Stokes was jubilant. He told the Leyland Motors Board - and I quote a Leyland Board member present - “This was no merger. We have taken over AEC and we shall soon feel the benefit”.
Stanley Markland and Donald Stokes joined the AEC Board… John Bowley and I were then required to make a presentation to the Leyland Designs Policy Committee on the 760 and 520 engine proposals. With Sir Henry Spurrier by then seriously ill, Markland approved the 760 but only a reduced bore version of the 520 that would become the 505.
Following that Policy Meeting Stokes immediately planned to supersede, in total secrecy, AEC engines with new Leyland designs. Markland resigned when the dying Sir Henry Spurrier nominated Sir William Black as his successor, and in turn picking Donald Stokes as Corporate Managing Director.
End of extract,
Comment: Stanley Markland and Donald Stokes loathed each other with a passion. Markland would never have worked under Stokes. The 760 and 505 were signed off for development by Markland some 3 years before they entered production. Stokes was appointed Corporate MD before the 760 and 505 entered service. As they were AEC’s and Markland’s engines he would never sanction any further development of them until he had nowhere else to turn.
Just as Leyland had its secret projects, so did AEC when in Leyland’s grip. Some of the lessons learnt from further V8 development in the late 1960s were used in the TL12, such as its oil-cooled piston crowns.
Edit: Sir Donald Stokes was replaced by Michael Edwardes in 1977, and he remained a board member until 1979.
newmercman:
[zb]
anorak:
Back to the bore/stroke dogma, without even doing the calculation to verify it (which, I believe, is what started this thread off in the first place).Remember who started the thread, no way will he complain about off topic antics.
It started with a comparison of L12/TL12 v Rolls Eagle and that’s where it’s mostly stayed with other relevant stuff.
Calculation what calculation.
I’ve said piston speed isn’t an issue at truck engine speeds at well over 152 mm stroke let alone just that much.Engine speeds can obviously reduce to get the equivalent power output as leverage increases.
Haven’t got a clue what Anorak was referring to regarding 2 x BMEP or why he was referring to such a figure.
I thought he was referring to tensile loads on the piston and rod assembly which logically means peak power/max governed rpm between the exhaust and inlet strokes.Don’t ask me what it is in either case.If Anorak knows it then tell us.
Unless he’s going to tell us that the combined 14 main bearing fastenings aren’t going to amount to the need to contain a lot more tensile force applied by the pistons acting on them at peak torque rpm than the big end fastenings stopping the pistons and rods flying away from the crankshaft at peak power at 2,100 and 2,200 rpm respectively.
The same applies to the head fastenings stopping the head being blown off by the opposite force acting on it during the power stroke.Here’s a clue that’s more than 2 x BMEP.
gingerfold:
Reference CF’s comment about Donald Stokes running Standard Triumph… I think CF has got the timeline wrong.Quoting a further extract from Bob Fryars’ article.
… Sir Henry Spurrier had of course sacked the standard Motors management (just as he had done at Albion Motors years before) and turned to Stanley Markland (just as he had done before) to turn Standard around. By taking some serious risks, Markland managed to cut large stocks of cars by massive discounts, and start cutting Standard’s losses to manageable proportions. But until a reduction in purchase tax was made in the 1962 April budget that boosted car sales, the Leyland Motor Corporation was in very serious financial difficulty. Chrysler’s proposals to buy a controlling stake in Leyland, tabled in May 1962 had to be taken very seriously under those circumstances, and I do not believe that Spurrier gave any serious thought to ACV at that point.
But once the corner was turned at Standard Triumph the Chrysler offer could be finally turned down that June and Spurrier came round to the view that a ‘merger’ with his principal competitor would put the Leyland Motor Corporation in an almost impregnable position against further take-over bids. So the ‘merger’ with ACV was negotiated through June and July to be concluded in early August 1962. A merger may have been what the ACV Board had in mind. Had they forgotten what had been the fate of the Albion and Standard Triumph managements? A ‘merger’ was not what Sir Henry Spurrier or his acolyte Donald Stokes had in mind.
At AEC there was complete incomprehension and disbelief that the ACV Board could have ever considered such a deal… But at Leyland Donald Stokes was jubilant. He told the Leyland Motors Board - and I quote a Leyland Board member present - “This was no merger. We have taken over AEC and we shall soon feel the benefit”.
Stanley Markland and Donald Stokes joined the AEC Board… John Bowley and I were then required to make a presentation to the Leyland Designs Policy Committee on the 760 and 520 engine proposals. With Sir Henry Spurrier by then seriously ill, Markland approved the 760 but only a reduced bore version of the 520 that would become the 505.
Following that Policy Meeting Stokes immediately planned to supersede, in total secrecy, AEC engines with new Leyland designs. Markland resigned when the dying Sir Henry Spurrier nominated Sir William Black as his successor, and in turn picking Donald Stokes as Corporate Managing Director.End of extract,
Comment: Stanley Markland and Donald Stokes loathed each other with a passion. Markland would never have worked under Stokes. The 760 and 505 were signed off for development by Markland some 3 years before they entered production. Stokes was appointed Corporate MD before the 760 and 505 entered service. As they were AEC’s and Markland’s engines he would never sanction any further development of them until he had nowhere else to turn.
Just as Leyland had its secret projects, so did AEC when in Leyland’s grip. Some of the lessons learnt from further V8 development in the late 1960s were used in the TL12, such as its oil-cooled piston crowns.
Spurrier was replaced by William Black of AEC.
Markland resigned in 1963.
The 691 and 760 was introduced in 1965 so obviously on the drawing board and signed off before that.
Stokes was on the board of Leyland but was only the sales director of Triumph and Markland was his boss.
Stokes was still only Chairman of Triumph in 1963 when Markland resigned.Well before Stokes was made MD.
Stokes obviously wasn’t responsible for the 691 or 760 and it was that block architecture which was obviously then taken forward for the TL12.As opposed to AEC saying no way.
At which point what choice did Stokes have but to wave it through.
Which matters how to the fact that the TL12 needed to be knocked on the head at the design stage of T45 and Rolls Royce brought on board instead to power it.
That decision would have been way above Stokes’ pay grade.That would have been the decision of Michael Edwardes who was at that time the boss of the NEB which of course ultimately controlled and funded both state rescued firms. ( That name again ), the man who was then parachuted into run Leyland Group and who had stitched up Rover and Triumph to the benefit of BMW done it again in the case of Leyland Trucks followed by Buses to the benefit of DAF and Volvo.
As for Stokes he was effectively powerless with just a token horary role by 1975 and left Leyland in 1977 well before the T45 hit the roads.
Edwardes and his government handlers were the problem here not Stokes.
“CF” my Son you must have exhausted the entire Google files on Leyland/AEC engine specs 
There must have been ■■■■■■■ cobwebs on some of the “spiel” you have posted ! It wouldn’t be that boring if you had imparted more “gen” on Gardners and ■■■■■■■ but all the bollox on TL’s and 500’s makes my ■■■■■■■ teeth itch and at the time when I’m desperately trying to find a sensible thread to follow since the Bewick thread was scrubbed, well the DIT/ Buzzer thread excepted ! 
So Matron , Matron, how about giving him another 250cl’s of Horse tranquilizer ! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
“CF” my Son you must have exhausted the entire Google files on Leyland/AEC engine specs
By all accounts you nuked your own topic for some unknown reason.
If you can find some evidence of a TL12 or AEC V8 or a 500 ever providing over 1,200 lb/ft and 400 hp might be interesting.
As for Gardner I did say that the 6LXB actually made more specific output than the L12.That really takes a special type of stupid and I don’t mean Gardner.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
“CF” my Son you must have exhausted the entire Google files on Leyland/AEC engine specsBy all accounts you nuked your own topic for some unknown reason.
If you can find some evidence of a TL12 or AEC V8 or a 500 ever providing over 1,200 lb/ft and 400 hp might be interesting.
As for Gardner I did say that the 6LXB actually made more specific output than the L12.That really takes a special type of stupid and I don’t mean Gardner.
Why in 73 when the TL was introduced did it need to and you still haven’t explained what problems the TL caused in service unlike the equivelant Roller of 73
ramone:
Carryfast:
As for Gardner I did say that the 6LXB actually made more specific output than the L12.That really takes a special type of stupid and I don’t mean Gardner.Why in 73 when the TL was introduced did it need to and you still haven’t explained what problems the TL caused in service unlike the equivelant Roller of 73
Why would you think that an engine intoroduced in the 1970’s with less specific output than a Gardner design introduced in the 1960’s was acceptable.You’re also surely not suggesting that the L12 was more reliable or economical than the 6LXB.
I’m also not aware of any major issues with the Eagle Mk111 220 or 280 or 305.If so what were they.
I’m not talking about 1973 I’m talking about late 1970’s-80’s.Unless you’re saying that the TL12 was only intended to have a 2-3 year production life.
In which case what was on the drawing board to follow it in the T45.
In the absence of such why wouldn’t you want to knock the TL12 on the head and bring Rolls on board.Instead of nobbling the Roadtrain with the TL12 at launch.
All very convenient for the DAF 3300 and Volvo F12 knowing what happened next.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
Reference CF’s comment about Donald Stokes running Standard Triumph… I think CF has got the timeline wrong.Quoting a further extract from Bob Fryars’ article.
… Sir Henry Spurrier had of course sacked the standard Motors management (just as he had done at Albion Motors years before) and turned to Stanley Markland (just as he had done before) to turn Standard around. By taking some serious risks, Markland managed to cut large stocks of cars by massive discounts, and start cutting Standard’s losses to manageable proportions. But until a reduction in purchase tax was made in the 1962 April budget that boosted car sales, the Leyland Motor Corporation was in very serious financial difficulty. Chrysler’s proposals to buy a controlling stake in Leyland, tabled in May 1962 had to be taken very seriously under those circumstances, and I do not believe that Spurrier gave any serious thought to ACV at that point.
But once the corner was turned at Standard Triumph the Chrysler offer could be finally turned down that June and Spurrier came round to the view that a ‘merger’ with his principal competitor would put the Leyland Motor Corporation in an almost impregnable position against further take-over bids. So the ‘merger’ with ACV was negotiated through June and July to be concluded in early August 1962. A merger may have been what the ACV Board had in mind. Had they forgotten what had been the fate of the Albion and Standard Triumph managements? A ‘merger’ was not what Sir Henry Spurrier or his acolyte Donald Stokes had in mind.
At AEC there was complete incomprehension and disbelief that the ACV Board could have ever considered such a deal… But at Leyland Donald Stokes was jubilant. He told the Leyland Motors Board - and I quote a Leyland Board member present - “This was no merger. We have taken over AEC and we shall soon feel the benefit”.
Stanley Markland and Donald Stokes joined the AEC Board… John Bowley and I were then required to make a presentation to the Leyland Designs Policy Committee on the 760 and 520 engine proposals. With Sir Henry Spurrier by then seriously ill, Markland approved the 760 but only a reduced bore version of the 520 that would become the 505.
Following that Policy Meeting Stokes immediately planned to supersede, in total secrecy, AEC engines with new Leyland designs. Markland resigned when the dying Sir Henry Spurrier nominated Sir William Black as his successor, and in turn picking Donald Stokes as Corporate Managing Director.End of extract,
Comment: Stanley Markland and Donald Stokes loathed each other with a passion. Markland would never have worked under Stokes. The 760 and 505 were signed off for development by Markland some 3 years before they entered production. Stokes was appointed Corporate MD before the 760 and 505 entered service. As they were AEC’s and Markland’s engines he would never sanction any further development of them until he had nowhere else to turn.
Just as Leyland had its secret projects, so did AEC when in Leyland’s grip. Some of the lessons learnt from further V8 development in the late 1960s were used in the TL12, such as its oil-cooled piston crowns.
Spurrier was replaced by William Black of AEC.
Markland resigned in 1963.
The 691 and 760 was introduced in 1965 so obviously on the drawing board and signed off before that.
Stokes was on the board of Leyland but was only the sales director of Triumph and Markland was his boss.
Stokes was still only Chairman of Triumph in 1963 when Markland resigned.Well before Stokes was made MD.
Stokes obviously wasn’t responsible for the 691 or 760 and it was that block architecture which was obviously then taken forward for the TL12.As opposed to AEC saying no way.
At which point what choice did Stokes have but to wave it through.Which matters how to the fact that the TL12 needed to be knocked on the head at the design stage of T45 and Rolls Royce brought on board instead to power it.
That decision would have been way above Stokes’ pay grade.That would have been the decision of Michael Edwardes who was at that time the boss of the NEB which of course ultimately controlled and funded both state rescued firms. ( That name again ), the man who was then parachuted into run Leyland Group and who had stitched up Rover and Triumph to the benefit of BMW done it again in the case of Leyland Trucks followed by Buses to the benefit of DAF and Volvo.
As for Stokes he was effectively powerless with just a token horary role by 1975 and left Leyland in 1977 well before the T45 hit the roads.
Edwardes and his government handlers were the problem here not Stokes.
Donald Stokes WAS the head man of British Leyland from 1965 until 1977. Sir William Black was Chairman of the Board. If you don’t believe, or choose to believe that Stokes was the head man and decision maker then you really are living in a parallel universe.
ramone:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
“CF” my Son you must have exhausted the entire Google files on Leyland/AEC engine specsBy all accounts you nuked your own topic for some unknown reason.
If you can find some evidence of a TL12 or AEC V8 or a 500 ever providing over 1,200 lb/ft and 400 hp might be interesting.
As for Gardner I did say that the 6LXB actually made more specific output than the L12.That really takes a special type of stupid and I don’t mean Gardner.
Why in 73 when the TL was introduced did it need to and you still haven’t explained what problems the TL caused in service unlike the equivelant Roller of 73
He cannot explain it because the TL12 was a very good operational engine. No problems in service, no warranty claims, no issues and ■■■■■■ all over a RR Eagle 220 in every aspect of performance and reliability.
From having one or two sensible posts CF is seriously embarrassing himself again. Even contradicting Bob Fryars.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
Reference CF’s comment about Donald Stokes running Standard Triumph… I think CF has got the timeline wrong.Quoting a further extract from Bob Fryars’ article.
… Sir Henry Spurrier had of course sacked the standard Motors management (just as he had done at Albion Motors years before) and turned to Stanley Markland (just as he had done before) to turn Standard around. By taking some serious risks, Markland managed to cut large stocks of cars by massive discounts, and start cutting Standard’s losses to manageable proportions. But until a reduction in purchase tax was made in the 1962 April budget that boosted car sales, the Leyland Motor Corporation was in very serious financial difficulty. Chrysler’s proposals to buy a controlling stake in Leyland, tabled in May 1962 had to be taken very seriously under those circumstances, and I do not believe that Spurrier gave any serious thought to ACV at that point.
But once the corner was turned at Standard Triumph the Chrysler offer could be finally turned down that June and Spurrier came round to the view that a ‘merger’ with his principal competitor would put the Leyland Motor Corporation in an almost impregnable position against further take-over bids. So the ‘merger’ with ACV was negotiated through June and July to be concluded in early August 1962. A merger may have been what the ACV Board had in mind. Had they forgotten what had been the fate of the Albion and Standard Triumph managements? A ‘merger’ was not what Sir Henry Spurrier or his acolyte Donald Stokes had in mind.
At AEC there was complete incomprehension and disbelief that the ACV Board could have ever considered such a deal… But at Leyland Donald Stokes was jubilant. He told the Leyland Motors Board - and I quote a Leyland Board member present - “This was no merger. We have taken over AEC and we shall soon feel the benefit”.
Stanley Markland and Donald Stokes joined the AEC Board… John Bowley and I were then required to make a presentation to the Leyland Designs Policy Committee on the 760 and 520 engine proposals. With Sir Henry Spurrier by then seriously ill, Markland approved the 760 but only a reduced bore version of the 520 that would become the 505.
Following that Policy Meeting Stokes immediately planned to supersede, in total secrecy, AEC engines with new Leyland designs. Markland resigned when the dying Sir Henry Spurrier nominated Sir William Black as his successor, and in turn picking Donald Stokes as Corporate Managing Director.End of extract,
Comment: Stanley Markland and Donald Stokes loathed each other with a passion. Markland would never have worked under Stokes. The 760 and 505 were signed off for development by Markland some 3 years before they entered production. Stokes was appointed Corporate MD before the 760 and 505 entered service. As they were AEC’s and Markland’s engines he would never sanction any further development of them until he had nowhere else to turn.
Just as Leyland had its secret projects, so did AEC when in Leyland’s grip. Some of the lessons learnt from further V8 development in the late 1960s were used in the TL12, such as its oil-cooled piston crowns.
Spurrier was replaced by William Black of AEC.
Markland resigned in 1963.
The 691 and 760 was introduced in 1965 so obviously on the drawing board and signed off before that.
Stokes was on the board of Leyland but was only the sales director of Triumph and Markland was his boss.
Stokes was still only Chairman of Triumph in 1963 when Markland resigned.Well before Stokes was made MD.
Stokes obviously wasn’t responsible for the 691 or 760 and it was that block architecture which was obviously then taken forward for the TL12.As opposed to AEC saying no way.
At which point what choice did Stokes have but to wave it through.Which matters how to the fact that the TL12 needed to be knocked on the head at the design stage of T45 and Rolls Royce brought on board instead to power it.
That decision would have been way above Stokes’ pay grade.That would have been the decision of Michael Edwardes who was at that time the boss of the NEB which of course ultimately controlled and funded both state rescued firms. ( That name again ), the man who was then parachuted into run Leyland Group and who had stitched up Rover and Triumph to the benefit of BMW done it again in the case of Leyland Trucks followed by Buses to the benefit of DAF and Volvo.
As for Stokes he was effectively powerless with just a token horary role by 1975 and left Leyland in 1977 well before the T45 hit the roads.
Edwardes and his government handlers were the problem here not Stokes.
I will try and explain how corporate life works at a senior level, although I realise that I’m probably wasting my time and you will ignore it.
Donald Stokes as Sales Director of Standard Triumph was appointed to the Board of an acquired company. It was a position that allowed him to oversee sales operations at Standard. As a truck and bus salesman he had little or no understanding of the car sales market but he would advise the Standard sales team on certain matters such as discounts. Stanley Markland was reporting directly to Spurrier and the Leyland Board as he attempted to stem losses at Standard. Spurrier was the boss of both Markland and Stokes. Stokes still retained his Leyland sales directors’ duties. That is what happens when one company acquires another, initially the purchasing company puts its own management into the acquired company to assess what is going on and recommend changes to bring the acquisition into line with the management practises and style of the purchaser. Markland’s expertise was in production and financial control; Stokes was a successful salesman. Markland was not Stokes’ boss at Standard or anywhere else in the Leyland group of companies.
The comment I have highlighted is complete balderdash. Stokes was the main man.
I read a book on BL a while back, can’t remember the title, it’s on a dead Kindle so can’t retrieve it, anyway it gave the whole BL story and Stokes was THE man.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
As for Gardner I did say that the 6LXB actually made more specific output than the L12.That really takes a special type of stupid and I don’t mean Gardner.Why in 73 when the TL was introduced did it need to and you still haven’t explained what problems the TL caused in service unlike the equivelant Roller of 73
Why would you think that an engine intoroduced in the 1970’s with less specific output than a Gardner design introduced in the 1960’s was acceptable.You’re also surely not suggesting that the L12 was more reliable or economical than the 6LXB.
I’m also not aware of any major issues with the Eagle Mk111 220 or 280 or 305.If so what were they.I’m not talking about 1973 I’m talking about late 1970’s-80’s.Unless you’re saying that the TL12 was only intended to have a 2-3 year production life.
In which case what was on the drawing board to follow it in the T45.
In the absence of such why wouldn’t you want to knock the TL12 on the head and bring Rolls on board.Instead of nobbling the Roadtrain with the TL12 at launch.
All very convenient for the DAF 3300 and Volvo F12 knowing what happened next.
So now you are a Gardner 180 fan ffs and we are back on the L12 which was aimed at customers who wanted a non turbo engine. Go back to previous posts on different threads regarding your not my opinions on the 180 which made many a haulier in its day.
The RRs of the early 70s were not good whereas the TL12 was
gingerfold:
Carryfast:
Donald Stokes WAS the head man of British Leyland from 1965 until 1977. Sir William Black was Chairman of the Board. If you don’t believe, or choose to believe that Stokes was the head man and decision maker then you really are living in a parallel universe.
But Stokes WASN’T the ‘head man’ in control during the ‘design stage’ and signing off of the clearly 590 stroke based 691 and 760 which is the point.
That was obviously because AEC’s design team were fixated on the idea of just increasing bore size stroke doesn’t matter.All obviously under Spurrier,Black and Markland.Not Stokes. 
Stokes wasn’t really even responsible for the engineering decisions at Triumph let alone AEC at that point.He was only sales director.
He was though later directly involved in the decision to upgrade the Triumph 2000 to 2.5 at a time before BMW’s E3 was on the scene having just over priced 4 cylinder junk in its armoury.That’s not the actions of a fool let alone the questionable activities that took place at JRT and then true to form Truck and Bus on Edwardes’ watch.
So what choice did Stokes have in 1973 other than to wave through the AEC designed, clearly 691/760 architecture based, TL12 bearing in mind it wasn’t a Leyland design ?.
The T45 and what engine Leyland put in it at launch also had nothing to do with Stokes.Nor could he possibly have had any influence on what happened next.Which is the smoking gun here.
The truth is DAF and Volvo took full advantage of AEC’s bad engineering design decisions regarding the 691/760/TL12 with a lot of help from Edwardes and then Thatcher.
The closure of AEC having nothing to do with Stokes.If Stokes had wanted AEC out of the frame he could/would have done it well before Edwardes actually did and why would he have chosen to bet the farm on the TL12 of all things.
Oh wait it was all Leyland had in its armoury.With the government, not him, in control of the ■■■■■ strings of the cash needed to upgrade it.
It wasn’t good enough and his actions regarding the decision to upgrade the Triumph 2000 and the correct method they chose to do it says that he knew it.
Rover’s V8 upgrade of the 2000 was also done on Stokes’ watch.
Still the AEC fans argue that the DAF DK and more importantly the TD120 weren’t the surperior designs and the Rolls wasn’t the only logical opposition that we had in the armoury.
Just like others say that what happened at JRT was all the workers fault.Not Edwardes sabotaging them with firstly the SD1 abortion followed by the full ■■■■■■ front drive Honda derivatives.While BMW got on with its 3 series and 5 series.
That’s what I call a parallel universe.
gingerfold:
ramone:
As for Gardner I did say that the 6LXB actually made more specific output than the L12.That really takes a special type of stupid and I don’t mean Gardner.Why in 73 when the TL was introduced did it need to and you still haven’t explained what problems the TL caused in service unlike the equivelant Roller of 73
He cannot explain it because the TL12 was a very good operational engine. No problems in service, no warranty claims, no issues and ■■■■■■ all over a RR Eagle 220 in every aspect of performance and reliability.
From having one or two sensible posts CF is seriously embarrassing himself again. Even contradicting Bob Fryars.
[/quote]
Do you mean the fact that Stokes had no input concerning the design of the 691 or 760 and with that was locked into AEC’s unfortunate ideas in the case of the TL12 ?.But nothing stopping Edwardes knocking it on the head and bringing in Rolls ready for the launch of T45.
The TL12 ■■■■■■ all over the 220 which isn’t surprising but the 220 ■■■■■■ all over the L12 which is more relevant.While the TL12 certainly didn’t ■■■■ all over the 305 and wasn’t even there to try against the 290/320 let alone TX400.
History is actually on my side here.If the TL12 was the better motor that’s what Scammell would have put in its Crusaders both military and civilian and the T45 would have stayed with the TL12 throughout its production life.
Although ironically Leyland never then put the Rolls in it to save Leyland trucks they did it to create a soft landing for the bankers ready for the foregone sell out to DAF.
As opposed to Edwardes ordering Rolls to be brought into the Leyland Group before the introduction on the T45.That’s as sensible as it gets.
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
As for Gardner I did say that the 6LXB actually made more specific output than the L12.That really takes a special type of stupid and I don’t mean Gardner.Why in 73 when the TL was introduced did it need to and you still haven’t explained what problems the TL caused in service unlike the equivelant Roller of 73
Why would you think that an engine intoroduced in the 1970’s with less specific output than a Gardner design introduced in the 1960’s was acceptable.You’re also surely not suggesting that the L12 was more reliable or economical than the 6LXB.
I’m also not aware of any major issues with the Eagle Mk111 220 or 280 or 305.If so what were they.I’m not talking about 1973 I’m talking about late 1970’s-80’s.Unless you’re saying that the TL12 was only intended to have a 2-3 year production life.
In which case what was on the drawing board to follow it in the T45.
In the absence of such why wouldn’t you want to knock the TL12 on the head and bring Rolls on board.Instead of nobbling the Roadtrain with the TL12 at launch.
All very convenient for the DAF 3300 and Volvo F12 knowing what happened next.So now you are a Gardner 180 fan ffs and we are back on the L12 which was aimed at customers who wanted a non turbo engine. Go back to previous posts on different threads regarding your not my opinions on the 180 which made many a haulier in its day.
The RRs of the early 70s were not good whereas the TL12 was
Ironically in this case credit where credit is due and both 220 Rolls and Gardner 6lxb beat the L12 in terms of their specific output.
That isn’t making the case for NA engines still even being offered in the mid-late 1970’s.They were obsolete by then.
What has customers wanting NA engines got to do with a comparison of …NA engines.
I don’t buy the idea that the Mk111 Eagle was significantly worse regards reliability than the TL12 and obviously no comparison possible in the case of the 305.
At this point in time it was all about development of specific torque outputs which is what turbocharging was all about.
It wasn’t a question of which anchor was the most reliable.
A few eggs were going to get broken along the way getting there and the Rolls broke the fewest for the most return.Not surprisingly sharing the basic architecture of the TD120.
Rolls and Leyland were made for each other at this point and it was Edwardes not Stokes who stood in the way of that.
As for the TL12 remind me who’s watch that was introduced under.Not exactly the mark of someone out to destroy AEC.
Unlike Edwardes.
Carryfast:
newmercman:
[zb]
anorak:
Back to the bore/stroke dogma, without even doing the calculation to verify it (which, I believe, is what started this thread off in the first place).Remember who started the thread, no way will he complain about off topic antics.
It started with a comparison of L12/TL12 v Rolls Eagle and that’s where it’s mostly stayed with other relevant stuff.
Calculation what calculation.
I’ve said piston speed isn’t an issue at truck engine speeds at well over 152 mm stroke let alone just that much.Engine speeds can obviously reduce to get the equivalent power output as leverage increases.
Haven’t got a clue what Anorak was referring to regarding 2 x BMEP or why he was referring to such a figure.
I thought he was referring to tensile loads on the piston and rod assembly which logically means peak power/max governed rpm between the exhaust and inlet strokes.Don’t ask me what it is in either case.If Anorak knows it then tell us.
Unless he’s going to tell us that the combined 14 main bearing fastenings aren’t going to amount to the need to contain a lot more tensile force applied by the pistons acting on them at peak torque rpm than the big end fastenings stopping the pistons and rods flying away from the crankshaft at peak power at 2,100 and 2,200 rpm respectively.
The same applies to the head fastenings stopping the head being blown off by the opposite force acting on it during the power stroke.Here’s a clue that’s more than 2 x BMEP.
Do the calculation. Use whatever peak pressure you like, but provide a source for your information. I only said 2x BMEP to give you a number to work with. It would have been easy enough to substitute another number into your equation. If you had done the calculation, it would have shown that you know what you are talking about. So far, all you have done is avoid the issue, while ramping up the b.s.
gingerfold:
Carryfast:
Which matters how to the fact that the TL12 needed to be knocked on the head at the design stage of T45 and Rolls Royce brought on board instead to power it.That decision would have been way above Stokes’ pay grade.That would have been the decision of Michael Edwardes who was at that time the boss of the NEB which of course ultimately controlled and funded both state rescued firms. ( That name again ), the man who was then parachuted into run Leyland Group and who had stitched up Rover and Triumph to the benefit of BMW done it again in the case of Leyland Trucks followed by Buses to the benefit of DAF and Volvo.
As for Stokes he was effectively powerless with just a token horary role by 1975 and left Leyland in 1977 well before the T45 hit the roads.
Edwardes and his government handlers were the problem here not Stokes.I will try and explain how corporate life works at a senior level, although I realise that I’m probably wasting my time and you will ignore it.
Donald Stokes as Sales Director of Standard Triumph was appointed to the Board of an acquired company. It was a position that allowed him to oversee sales operations at Standard. As a truck and bus salesman he had little or no understanding of the car sales market but he would advise the Standard sales team on certain matters such as discounts. Stanley Markland was reporting directly to Spurrier and the Leyland Board as he attempted to stem losses at Standard. Spurrier was the boss of both Markland and Stokes. Stokes still retained his Leyland sales directors’ duties. That is what happens when one company acquires another, initially the purchasing company puts its own management into the acquired company to assess what is going on and recommend changes to bring the acquisition into line with the management practises and style of the purchaser. Markland’s expertise was in production and financial control; Stokes was a successful salesman. Markland was not Stokes’ boss at Standard or anywhere else in the Leyland group of companies.The comment I have highlighted is complete balderdash. Stokes was the main man.
Markland was the MD of Standard Triumph as of 1961.Stokes was sales director obviously UNDER Markland.Markland resigned at the end of 1963.Stokes then became Chairman of… Standard Triumph.
What was William Black’s role in all this.Remind me where he came from.Obviously way out ranking Stokes at that point after Spurrier’s demise.
What actual evidence have you got that Stokes had any input whatsoever at the design and signing off stages of the 691 and 760 ?.Which was obviously well before 1965.
Remind me what position and power that Stokes had at the design stages of the T45/Roadtrain ?.
Let’s say 1975 - 78 ?.
Even if he was still MD of Leyland Group at that time, which he wasn’t, how would he have had the power to say bring Rolls Royce in house.Which would have been a deal under the control of the NEB and only the NEB itself answerable to the Government.
You say the TL12 was a great motor, which it wasn’t.
In which case how does that fit any supposed conspiracy of Stokes to destroy AEC.The TL 12 was a product of AEC’s design team ( usual MO lets just go with the 760’s big bore and Routemaster bus motor’s stroke it’ll be fine ).Not a Leyland design and it was Stokes who’d obviously over seen it.
Remind me who was running Leyland Group and for how long when AEC engine production was actually transferred to Leyland.Followed by when AEC was actually closed down.In view of your claims that Stokes wanted to wipe out AEC ?.
Asking AEC to design and provide Leyland’s only real heavy truck engine option, which you say was a great motor, was a strange way of doing it.
Yet you still say that Stokes was the main player in the destruction of AEC and with it Leyland Truck and Bus division.Not Edwardes.Strange.