sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
altitude:
I’m sure Carryfast will put us all right on this one 
One week later and you were spot on John 
.
Someone’s got to do it.
You could rewrite this Carryfast the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
They could re title Saviem’s post as war and peace.But even if it was twice as long as that it still won’t make that Renault (or F88) any faster. 
CF The fastest standard production lorry on the road in the 60s would have been the AEC Mandator V8 and in the 70s it would have been the F88 290 which I drove one for around 4 years and I still don’t know how fast that would go as the tachograph only went up to 80 mph and it would reach 80 before using the spiltter into top but stopping them was another matter. If you drove them without driving with your foot to the floor they were reasonably good on fuel and 7/8 mpg could be achieved on long runs.
The F10 was derated to 278 bhp when first introduced and though it did have more room in the cab it was not up the F88 pulling wise or as fast and I would say from that period in time that maximum speeds were reduced on production lorries.
The D/D V8 was a very thirsty engine compared to everything else on offer at the time and by a big margin plus you were forever having to change gear to keep it wound up and this is first hand knowledge having driven one quite often. I was always an employed driver but even I knew that something that could drink a lot quicker than me was taking away my next pay rise even though it was capable of doing the job why would anyone want to pay a substantial amount extra in fuel costs to run a green oil leaker
cheers Johnnie
That seems to contradict all of the effort and development that Volvo put into developing the F10/12 .An early 1980’s F12 no limiter versus a F88 yeah right.
As for the Detroit you have’nt said which one 
but why would something producing around 300 hp at around 2,000 rpm need any more winding up than an F88 .However ‘if’ the Brits had gone for the 8V92 option,which they did’nt, instead of trying to make 7 and 9 litre non turbocharged bus engines pull artics,it would’nt have been a case of winding it up more like save fuel by keeping it wound down .
Carryfast:
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
altitude:
I’m sure Carryfast will put us all right on this one
One week later and you were spot on John .
Someone’s got to do it.
You could rewrite this Carryfast the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
They could re title Saviem’s post as war and peace.But even if it was twice as long as that it still won’t make that Renault (or F88) any faster.
CF The fastest standard production lorry on the road in the 60s would have been the AEC Mandator V8 and in the 70s it would have been the F88 290 which I drove one for around 4 years and I still don’t know how fast that would go as the tachograph only went up to 80 mph and it would reach 80 before using the spiltter into top but stopping them was another matter. If you drove them without driving with your foot to the floor they were reasonably good on fuel and 7/8 mpg could be achieved on long runs.
The F10 was derated to 278 bhp when first introduced and though it did have more room in the cab it was not up the F88 pulling wise or as fast and I would say from that period in time that maximum speeds were reduced on production lorries.
The D/D V8 was a very thirsty engine compared to everything else on offer at the time and by a big margin plus you were forever having to change gear to keep it wound up and this is first hand knowledge having driven one quite often. I was always an employed driver but even I knew that something that could drink a lot quicker than me was taking away my next pay rise even though it was capable of doing the job why would anyone want to pay a substantial amount extra in fuel costs to run a green oil leaker
cheers Johnnie
That seems to contradict all of the effort and development that Volvo put into developing the F10/12 .An early 1980’s F12 no limiter versus a F88 yeah right.
As for the Detroit you have’nt said which one but why would something producing around 300 hp at around 2,000 rpm need any more winding up than an F88 .However ‘if’ the Brits had gone for the 8V92 option,which they did’nt, instead of trying to make 7 and 9 litre non turbocharged bus engines pull artics,it would’nt have been a case of winding it up more like save fuel by keeping it wound down .
Geeze if only this forum would have been around in the mid 70`s,you could have put all those unsuccessful hauliers right and every other motor on the road would have been a Bedford tm V8 and poor Dennis would be sat up in ■■■■■■■ now enjoying his retirement instead of trying to make ends meet because he bought Scania and Volvo
ramone:
Carryfast:
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
altitude:
I’m sure Carryfast will put us all right on this one
One week later and you were spot on John .
Someone’s got to do it.
You could rewrite this Carryfast the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
They could re title Saviem’s post as war and peace.But even if it was twice as long as that it still won’t make that Renault (or F88) any faster.
CF The fastest standard production lorry on the road in the 60s would have been the AEC Mandator V8 and in the 70s it would have been the F88 290 which I drove one for around 4 years and I still don’t know how fast that would go as the tachograph only went up to 80 mph and it would reach 80 before using the spiltter into top but stopping them was another matter. If you drove them without driving with your foot to the floor they were reasonably good on fuel and 7/8 mpg could be achieved on long runs.
The F10 was derated to 278 bhp when first introduced and though it did have more room in the cab it was not up the F88 pulling wise or as fast and I would say from that period in time that maximum speeds were reduced on production lorries.
The D/D V8 was a very thirsty engine compared to everything else on offer at the time and by a big margin plus you were forever having to change gear to keep it wound up and this is first hand knowledge having driven one quite often. I was always an employed driver but even I knew that something that could drink a lot quicker than me was taking away my next pay rise even though it was capable of doing the job why would anyone want to pay a substantial amount extra in fuel costs to run a green oil leaker
cheers Johnnie
That seems to contradict all of the effort and development that Volvo put into developing the F10/12 .An early 1980’s F12 no limiter versus a F88 yeah right.
As for the Detroit you have’nt said which one but why would something producing around 300 hp at around 2,000 rpm need any more winding up than an F88 .However ‘if’ the Brits had gone for the 8V92 option,which they did’nt, instead of trying to make 7 and 9 litre non turbocharged bus engines pull artics,it would’nt have been a case of winding it up more like save fuel by keeping it wound down .
Geeze if only this forum would have been around in the mid 70`s,you could have put all those unsuccessful hauliers right and every other motor on the road would have been a Bedford tm V8 and poor Dennis would be sat up in ■■■■■■■ now enjoying his retirement instead of trying to make ends meet because he bought Scania and Volvo
Did’nt think the issue was one concerning Bewick’s retirement I thought it was supposed to be all about the question of were the continental wagons ‘much’ better the answer is no not in all cases it’s just that the Brits would’nt buy those ‘better’ ones at the time of their introduction while the foreign lot could sell their better trucks on their home markets and afford to wait for the Brit buyers to get their act together before those manufacturers went under unlike the Brit manufacturers.Simples.
Hello again, CF you have obviously never driven a Detroit, otherwise you would know what happens when you “wind it down”,so best let you find out for yourself. Regarding the Saviem with Rolls power,my old friends the Lefebvre family from Aix Noulette, I think one of Perez et Raimonds best parts customers, (the French Detroit Concessionaire) ran it against their existing Detroit powered International tractors in the T.A.F. fleet, and were delighted with the results. Ditto Group Giraud, against Scania and DAF. Then came the state organized merger between Saviem and Berliet, almost the reverse of Leyland/AEC in that number two took over number one, and then the normal rationalisations began. Like in the UK Importers found new Dealers who had lost their priginal franchise.The main benificiary was DAF, then Volvo Scania and Mercedes, but there was not the enormous rush of clients to the importers, although there were some significant losses.I often wonder if the AEC/Willeme connection (also including BMC) had been developed by a financial interest between Southall and Willeme itself then could both have benefited and become world players seperate from Leyland, who seem to have had a policy of "killing off"its acquisitions. Certainly the AEC690 Willemes that I have driven were comfortable powerful tractors. Hugh Gardner and Eduard Bernard were similar characters in business, autocratic! But the result was licence built, and improved engines that French operators speak well of even today. Our industry had the chance in Europe, why oh why did it not be proactive. Finally “Gardner powered sheds” only when you have worked with and driven equivalent offerings from the rest of Europe can you make such a statement, but you would not, believe me. A vehicle becomes a “shed” when it has seen a lot of action, and not a lot of maintenance, and of course the skill of the driver!! Cheerio bye bye.
Some development was on-going at AEC circa 1970
Saviem:
Hello again, CF you have obviously never driven a Detroit, otherwise you would know what happens when you “wind it down”,so best let you find out for yourself.
If that was right then my first employers paid for my licence for nothing and I would’nt have been working there after I managed to get out of the zb factory building the fire engines fitted with them and started driving them instead.
You’ve obviously never driven a 16V71 with 1,800 lbs/ft of torque at 1,100 rpm and 635 hp at just over 2,000 rpm and that was introduced onto the market at a time when it’s anyone’s guess what most British drivers were driving.Although having said that the turbocharged 8V92 was’nt exactly underpowered either but I’ve already made enough comments elsewhere to show that I’ve never been one of the let it lug lot and I know that the best way to drive a Detroit is as though you hate it but that’s not the same thing as saying that you’d need to run a TM 4400,or a 3800,up to around 2,000 rpm in every gear to keep the zb thing moving and that’s probably the reason why everyone seems to think they drink fuel not surprisingly in that case.
Saviem:
Hello all, gingerfold, the RR info is really interesting. I had heard of Keith Roberts, but never met him. In the early days I remember someone from RR collecting a new Gardner piston from Gordon Cadwallader at Oswestry to study the ring arrangement, and I think RR used a number of local operators for testing. Before I went out this morning I had a quick look at my old records,(sad keeping things is it not), the rolls that was fitted into the Saviem was rated at 320hp, which was above the UK output, but I do not know which scale was used to calculate it, DIN or BS. What I do know is that the ONATRA agencies that trialed it, Tancarville, (Le Havre) and Vitrolles, raved about the driveability and outstanding economy! It was up against Saviem 320 V8s (MAN 16 litre naturally aspirated) 280TU and Berliet TR280. ONATRA at that time ran over 4000 vehicles in Europe. Got to go , load of fertilizer has arrived, will try to finish story later. Cheerio.
Is “carryfast” squatting down at your garden gate?
Carryfast:
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
altitude:
I’m sure Carryfast will put us all right on this one
One week later and you were spot on John .
Someone’s got to do it.
You could rewrite this Carryfast the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
They could re title Saviem’s post as war and peace.But even if it was twice as long as that it still won’t make that Renault (or F88) any faster.
CF The fastest standard production lorry on the road in the 60s would have been the AEC Mandator V8 and in the 70s it would have been the F88 290 which I drove one for around 4 years and I still don’t know how fast that would go as the tachograph only went up to 80 mph and it would reach 80 before using the spiltter into top but stopping them was another matter. If you drove them without driving with your foot to the floor they were reasonably good on fuel and 7/8 mpg could be achieved on long runs.
The F10 was derated to 278 bhp when first introduced and though it did have more room in the cab it was not up the F88 pulling wise or as fast and I would say from that period in time that maximum speeds were reduced on production lorries.
The D/D V8 was a very thirsty engine compared to everything else on offer at the time and by a big margin plus you were forever having to change gear to keep it wound up and this is first hand knowledge having driven one quite often. I was always an employed driver but even I knew that something that could drink a lot quicker than me was taking away my next pay rise even though it was capable of doing the job why would anyone want to pay a substantial amount extra in fuel costs to run a green oil leaker
cheers Johnnie
That seems to contradict all of the effort and development that Volvo put into developing the F10/12 .An early 1980’s F12 no limiter versus a F88 yeah right.
The F10 was the replacement for the F88 and the F12 was likewise for the F89
As for the Detroit you have’nt said which one but why would something producing around 300 hp at around 2,000 rpm need any more winding up than an F88 .However ‘if’ the Brits had gone for the 8V92 option,which they did’nt, instead of trying to make 7 and 9 litre non turbocharged bus engines pull artics,it would’nt have been a case of winding it up more like save fuel by keeping it wound down .
Which one 
It was supposed to have 2 banks of 4 cylinders which it had I did check it screamed like a banshee making a lot of noise and the fuel gauge would move as fast as the speedometer but having said that it did do its job most of the time and my regular wagon was an Atki with a 250 14 lt. ■■■■■■■ and 6 speed ZF box which in my opinion was as at least as good though having around 20% less bhp and far superior on fuel
Bewick:
Saviem:
Hello all, gingerfold, the RR info is really interesting. I had heard of Keith Roberts, but never met him. In the early days I remember someone from RR collecting a new Gardner piston from Gordon Cadwallader at Oswestry to study the ring arrangement, and I think RR used a number of local operators for testing. Before I went out this morning I had a quick look at my old records,(sad keeping things is it not), the rolls that was fitted into the Saviem was rated at 320hp, which was above the UK output, but I do not know which scale was used to calculate it, DIN or BS. What I do know is that the ONATRA agencies that trialed it, Tancarville, (Le Havre) and Vitrolles, raved about the driveability and outstanding economy! It was up against Saviem 320 V8s (MAN 16 litre naturally aspirated) 280TU and Berliet TR280. ONATRA at that time ran over 4000 vehicles in Europe. Got to go , load of fertilizer has arrived, will try to finish story later. Cheerio.
Is “carryfast” squatting down at your garden gate?
No he’s taken some of the bs that’s been written by some of the others instead.
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
altitude:
I’m sure Carryfast will put us all right on this one
One week later and you were spot on John .
Someone’s got to do it.
You could rewrite this Carryfast the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
They could re title Saviem’s post as war and peace.But even if it was twice as long as that it still won’t make that Renault (or F88) any faster.
CF The fastest standard production lorry on the road in the 60s would have been the AEC Mandator V8 and in the 70s it would have been the F88 290 which I drove one for around 4 years and I still don’t know how fast that would go as the tachograph only went up to 80 mph and it would reach 80 before using the spiltter into top but stopping them was another matter. If you drove them without driving with your foot to the floor they were reasonably good on fuel and 7/8 mpg could be achieved on long runs.
The F10 was derated to 278 bhp when first introduced and though it did have more room in the cab it was not up the F88 pulling wise or as fast and I would say from that period in time that maximum speeds were reduced on production lorries.
The D/D V8 was a very thirsty engine compared to everything else on offer at the time and by a big margin plus you were forever having to change gear to keep it wound up and this is first hand knowledge having driven one quite often. I was always an employed driver but even I knew that something that could drink a lot quicker than me was taking away my next pay rise even though it was capable of doing the job why would anyone want to pay a substantial amount extra in fuel costs to run a green oil leaker
cheers Johnnie
That seems to contradict all of the effort and development that Volvo put into developing the F10/12 .An early 1980’s F12 no limiter versus a F88 yeah right.
The F10 was the replacement for the F88 and the F12 was likewise for the F89
As for the Detroit you have’nt said which one but why would something producing around 300 hp at around 2,000 rpm need any more winding up than an F88 .However ‘if’ the Brits had gone for the 8V92 option,which they did’nt, instead of trying to make 7 and 9 litre non turbocharged bus engines pull artics,it would’nt have been a case of winding it up more like save fuel by keeping it wound down .
Which one It was supposed to have 2 banks of 4 cylinders which it had I did check it screamed like a banshee making a lot of noise and the fuel gauge would move as fast as the speedometer but having said that it did do its job most of the time and my regular wagon was an Atki with a 250 14 lt. ■■■■■■■ and 6 speed ZF box which in my opinion was as at least as good though having around 20% less bhp and far superior on fuel
Much what you’d expect when some Brit transport manager tries to use a 9 Litre non turbocharged bus engine to do the work of something a lot bigger . 
If it had been a 14 Litre 12V71 it still would still have screamed like a zb and used some fuel but you definitely would’nt have had much chance to wind it up without losing your licence first.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
Some development was on-going at AEC circa 1970
1
0
Looks like a cab over pete but they’ve forgot the sleeper.
And it’s double drive too so I’m the only one here who’d have bought one anyway.But I’d have put the TL12 in it which still would have been better than putting it the zb T45
Thought that it would appeal to you Carryfast. You wouldn’t have needed a sleeper, that AEC would have gone to anywhere and back in a shift. 
Carryfast:
Saviem:
Hello again, CF you have obviously never driven a Detroit, otherwise you would know what happens when you “wind it down”,so best let you find out for yourself.
If that was right then my first employers paid for my licence for nothing and I would’nt have been working there after I managed to get out of the zb factory building the fire engines fitted with them and started driving them instead.
You’ve obviously never driven a 16V71 with 1,800 lbs/ft of torque at 1,100 rpm and 635 hp at just over 2,000 rpm and that was introduced onto the market at a time when it’s anyone’s guess what most British drivers were driving.Although having said that the turbocharged 8V92 was’nt exactly underpowered either but I’ve already made enough comments elsewhere to show that I’ve never been one of the let it lug lot and I know that the best way to drive a Detroit is as though you hate it but that’s not the same thing as saying that you’d need to run a TM 4400,or a 3800,up to around 2,000 rpm in every gear to keep the zb thing moving and that’s probably the reason why everyone seems to think they drink fuel not surprisingly in that case.
You say your first employers “paid” for your licence CF,no mention of having to take a test then and passing it!!!Which raffle did you win it then? The (zb) that spills forth from your mouth must be greater than the volume of water that flows over the Niagra Falls!! Just accept the fact that DD’s,as far as the UK was concerned,were crap and not received well at-all by hauliers here! and if ever confirmation of this fact were still current you only have to read the “testicles” that you continue to spout on these threads!! Nurse please remove “carryfast” from our ward and return him to his “rubber” room !! The old SOM drivers are becoming restless and CF might be in receipt of a good kicking if he’s allowed to annoy the inmates further!!! More medication please,nurse!! Bewick.
gingerfold:
Some development was on-going at AEC circa 1970
1
0
I think Scania must have had a spy at AEC that dashboard looks like a primitive 113/143 dash
Arnside Carnival circa '73.Should have had you exhibited in a cage,“carryfast”,on the back of this Atki ( Gardner 6LW/6 spd DB/eaton axle) Who’s got the rotten fruit? Bewick.
Bewick:
Arnside Carnival circa '73.Should have had you exhibited in a cage,“carryfast”,on the back of this Atki ( Gardner 6LW/6 spd DB/eaton axle) Who’s got the rotten fruit? Bewick.
Still enjoying the crack on this thread Dennis!!! Vic.
v7victor:
Bewick:
Arnside Carnival circa '73.Should have had you exhibited in a cage,“carryfast”,on the back of this Atki ( Gardner 6LW/6 spd DB/eaton axle) Who’s got the rotten fruit? Bewick.
Still enjoying the crack on this thread Dennis!!! Vic.
Well contribute something Vic!! don’t just sit there laughing at the afflicted(well "carryfast"then!!) Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
v7victor:
Bewick:
Arnside Carnival circa '73.Should have had you exhibited in a cage,“carryfast”,on the back of this Atki ( Gardner 6LW/6 spd DB/eaton axle) Who’s got the rotten fruit? Bewick.
Still enjoying the crack on this thread Dennis!!! Vic.
Well contribute something Vic!! don’t just sit there laughing at the afflicted(well "carryfast"then!!) Cheers Dennis.
Not sure i know enough to get involved with (CF) Vic.
v7victor:
Bewick:
v7victor:
Bewick:
Arnside Carnival circa '73.Should have had you exhibited in a cage,“carryfast”,on the back of this Atki ( Gardner 6LW/6 spd DB/eaton axle) Who’s got the rotten fruit? Bewick.
Still enjoying the crack on this thread Dennis!!! Vic.
Well contribute something Vic!! don’t just sit there laughing at the afflicted(well "carryfast"then!!) Cheers Dennis.
Not sure i know enough to get involved with (CF) Vic.
You only need to be a Bulljockey to lock horns with him Vic .
Cheers Dave.
v7victor:
Bewick:
v7victor:
Bewick:
Arnside Carnival circa '73.Should have had you exhibited in a cage,“carryfast”,on the back of this Atki ( Gardner 6LW/6 spd DB/eaton axle) Who’s got the rotten fruit? Bewick.
Still enjoying the crack on this thread Dennis!!! Vic.
Well contribute something Vic!! don’t just sit there laughing at the afflicted(well "carryfast"then!!) Cheers Dennis.
Not sure i know enough to get involved with (CF) Vic.
Thats no problem Vic nobody else does
Johnnie