kr79:
we have probbally only got to the power ratings we have at the top end due to scania and Volvo trying to get one over on each other.
I think the reality is that 10-12 bhp + per tonne has always been the most efficient spec on the basis that a diesel is more efficient at part load than it is at full load it’s just that it’s taken this long for the Brit operators to understand what the Brit manufacturers knew in the 1970’s.
Carryfast:
kr79:
we have probbally only got to the power ratings we have at the top end due to scania and Volvo trying to get one over on each other.I think the reality is that 10-12 bhp + per tonne has always been the most efficient spec on the basis that a diesel is more efficient at part load than it is at full load it’s just that it’s taken this long for the Brit operators to understand what the Brit manufacturers knew in the 1970’s.
I know you know a thing or two about the physics behind the internal combustion engine, but I can’t see the logic in your statement, surely the modern diesel is just as efficient at full load, efficiency translates in laymans terms as getting the most bang for your buck, at full load a diesel engine burns 99% of the injected fuel, not all of it is translated into power at the wheels due to heat loss and drivetrain losses, but the burning of the fuel is about as good as it gets, mordern electronics will meter the fuel/air mixture, combined with wastegated and Variable Geometry Turbos the effiency is the same throughout the rev range, that’s how I see it 
As KR says, the power ratings we have now are purely a ■■■■■■■ contest between the manufacturers, it serves no purpose in the real world, take the Heavy Haul brigade, the super heavy boys like ALE use specialist kit, most everyone else uses Dafs, that statement is backed up by fact too, Daf make more heavy haulage spec trucks than all the rest, your Daf is not and never has been the most powerful lorry in its class, it’s all down to gearing and a perfect example of that is the Unimog, they can pull a 100tons and they have a 200hp engine 
newmercman:
Carryfast:
kr79:
we have probbally only got to the power ratings we have at the top end due to scania and Volvo trying to get one over on each other.I think the reality is that 10-12 bhp + per tonne has always been the most efficient spec on the basis that a diesel is more efficient at part load than it is at full load it’s just that it’s taken this long for the Brit operators to understand what the Brit manufacturers knew in the 1970’s.
I know you know a thing or two about the physics behind the internal combustion engine, but I can’t see the logic in your statement, surely the modern diesel is just as efficient at full load, efficiency translates in laymans terms as getting the most bang for your buck, at full load a diesel engine burns 99% of the injected fuel, not all of it is translated into power at the wheels due to heat loss and drivetrain losses, but the burning of the fuel is about as good as it gets, mordern electronics will meter the fuel/air mixture, combined with wastegated and Variable Geometry Turbos the effiency is the same throughout the rev range, that’s how I see it
As KR says, the power ratings we have now are purely a ■■■■■■■ contest between the manufacturers, it serves no purpose in the real world, take the Heavy Haul brigade, the super heavy boys like ALE use specialist kit, most everyone else uses Dafs, that statement is backed up by fact too, Daf make more heavy haulage spec trucks than all the rest, your Daf is not and never has been the most powerful lorry in its class, it’s all down to gearing and a perfect example of that is the Unimog, they can pull a 100tons and they have a 200hp engine
Going by that logic the most efficient spec for a 40 tonner would be to put a V8 Range Rover diesel in it instead of a zb great big heavy 12-15 Litre lump 
.
But can that Unomog pull 100 tonnes at 45 mph like that 8V92 in that modern army tank transporter can pull 108 t at. Although I’d bet that the thing would probably be more economical at that speed with a 12V92 in it with around 900 hp instead of the 500 of the V8 or the Unomog’s 200
Using a military spec or a fire tender spec is apples to oranges, they don’t work in normal conditions, you don’t see heavy haulage lorries belting along either, but a big fire or a war would make speed a priority, rather than efficiency
Just as an aside, the military spec engines made by DD have no emissions BS on them at all, no EGR, no silly retarded timing, no low sulphur diesel, so a military truck and a civilian truck with the same engines would be two very different beasts
“carryfast” Iv’e got to hand it to you,you are truly indifatigable in your unstoppable,insasiable,promotion of the indefensible!! As an operator of firstly ONE motor and over the preceeding 30 years rising to 100 tractors and trailers the number of which I’ve lost count!! I can tell you that it was never the case of me “sitting down” with the manufactures and discussing in depth what we wanted or needed regarding vehicle spec!! Life just wasn’t as well ordered as that for a “seat of the pants” haulier unfortunately!! Oh if it only had been so!!! If new or additional kit was required you had to get it from where and whoever had it no questions asked ,only the price! Thats why Bewicks bought their fleet from dealers/distributors from Glasgow to Bristol,Norwich,London,Southampton,Devizies,West Brom,Manchester Blackburn,Haydock,Doncaster,Middlesburgh,Carlisle,Preston,and M. Woodhouse,Lancaster. I only ever bought trailers though,from York,Crane/F,Task,M&G,Boalloy and L/David and all new! I bought what was available when I needed it.
Anyway you incorrigable scroat “carryfast” if at sometime in the future “we” were to organise a weekend get together for “senior members” on the TM site would you “deign” to be guest speaker at the event? I am not able to offer,in advance,any payment terms,but I am sure that a “retiring” whip round could be organised towards your ex’es,but of course you may take up the offer as an opertunity to personally apologise to all the the other members for all the “ear ache” you have subjected them to and therebye fore-go the no doubt substantial fee you usually chage for “after buffet” speaking (slavering)!! Who knows the venue may even be on the IOM (concert sec. C.Crompton sorry C. Webb!!) Cheers Bewick.
newmercman:
Using a military spec or a fire tender spec is apples to oranges, they don’t work in normal conditions, you don’t see heavy haulage lorries belting along either, but a big fire or a war would make speed a priority, rather than efficiencyJust as an aside, the military spec engines made by DD have no emissions BS on them at all, no EGR, no silly retarded timing, no low sulphur diesel, so a military truck and a civilian truck with the same engines would be two very different beasts
They say the 8V92 in the 1070 is rated at Euro 111 whatever that means but it looks like I’ll have to join the army if I want to get back to some common sense.
But seriously I think that the good old fashioned idea that it’s more fuel efficient to overpower a truck than to underpower it still holds good.
But don’t blame me for all the ideas I’ve got.I just got them all second hand from growing up listening to the numerous chassis engineers at numerous factories like Scammell’s at Watford,and Bedford’s in the day who were busy building fire truck chassis alongside commercials in addition to the lot where I worked as well.
Bewick would probably be ‘surprised’ to hear that most of them were of WW2 generation around my old Dad’s age and had a similar outlook on truck specs as those who designed the big V8 Scanias and those 400 +hp yanks at the time and often said if only they could all think like us fire engine builders concerning power outputs.
A Guy Big J with a Gardner 180LXB could never be classed as a “fire engine”----- a reliable work horse,yes,but a fire engine NO!! Bewick.
Hello all, Dennis, even Tony Browns Government would object to CF disembarking from the Steam Packet (even if that is now owned by a bunch of Portugese fishermen~Bankers. Perhaps Guy Martin will give him a test lap of the TT course in the KW K100 Detroit that he is buying from me, (remember everyone is in for an introductory commission payment when he sends the cash, even newmercman, although his will have to be in “colonial money”) Where shall we have the bash? Theyve closed Fawlty Towers, (the Grand Island) The Highlander, and the Bay Hotel are up for sale, The Crosby,( well we might meet two TV celebrity hauliers from Carlisle in there), so I think thats out, besides CF will never be able to reverse into Ballavitchell Lane to turn around, Mount Murray, CFs KW will get stuck on the car park, The Waterfall at Glen Maye has gone off a bit, shall we wait untill the new place is built in Ramsey, or has anybody got any ideas??
Saviem:
Hello all, Dennis, even Tony Browns Government would object to CF disembarking from the Steam Packet (even if that is now owned by a bunch of Portugese fishermen~Bankers. Perhaps Guy Martin will give him a test lap of the TT course in the KW K100 Detroit that he is buying from me, (remember everyone is in for an introductory commission payment when he sends the cash, even newmercman, although his will have to be in “colonial money”) Where shall we have the bash? Theyve closed Fawlty Towers, (the Grand Island) The Highlander, and the Bay Hotel are up for sale, The Crosby,( well we might meet two TV celebrity hauliers from Carlisle in there), so I think thats out, besides CF will never be able to reverse into Ballavitchell Lane to turn around, Mount Murray, CFs KW will get stuck on the car park, The Waterfall at Glen Maye has gone off a bit, shall we wait untill the new place is built in Ramsey, or has anybody got any ideas??
I was thinking more like Chris Webb’s local drinker(pie and peas,give order please!!) in Douglas,but if there is plenty of interest because “carryfast” has chanced his luck on the ferry,without a TM member slinging overboard,we may even be able to move the venue "up market " somewhat!! However I wouldn’t fancy CF’s chances of getting back to the mainland “dry shod” unless ,of course,he gave the talk of a lifetime and had us all clamouring for his autograph!! cheers Dennis.
Carryfast:
kr79:
we have probbally only got to the power ratings we have at the top end due to scania and Volvo trying to get one over on each other.I think the reality is that 10-12 bhp + per tonne has always been the most efficient spec on the basis that a diesel is more efficient at part load than it is at full load it’s just that it’s taken this long for the Brit operators to understand what the Brit manufacturers knew in the 1970’s.
I’d agree with that but it was all of Europe running at the bhp we were back then as some one pointed out the Germans were happy with a figure much less than that in the 70s.
I agree with your point that a higher power truck can be more efficient and economical when driven properly as it is less stressed but diesel engines are about torque not power so I can see how a conventional big diesel engine can be efficient and economical as you don’t have to rev the nuts off it but your two stroke which seems to need revs which just creates noise and burns expensive fuel hasnt got me convinced.
A fire engine is a total different beast all you want is to get to the fire quickly and sod the fuel economy.
In a haulage truck every extra bit of fuel economy helps that was true in the 70s and now more so.
That’s why the Gardner was popular it was recognised as economical and reliable so you can see why people trusted and speced them but it got to a point where people couldn’t wait forever for a new truck as it was affecting there business so as bewick pointed out you got what was available. It’s similar to how hino picked up sales paccar shut foden no one could supply construction chassis in a reasonable timeframe in a booming construction Market so hino stepped in to a ready made dealer network which had a good relationship with the construction Market and could supply trucks ready boddied straight away so people took a chance
If you put your average driver into an unbadged lorry with a 400 bhp engine and then into the same make but with a 500 bhp engine, how many would be able to tell the difference?
kr79:
Carryfast:
kr79:
we have probbally only got to the power ratings we have at the top end due to scania and Volvo trying to get one over on each other.I think the reality is that 10-12 bhp + per tonne has always been the most efficient spec on the basis that a diesel is more efficient at part load than it is at full load it’s just that it’s taken this long for the Brit operators to understand what the Brit manufacturers knew in the 1970’s.
I’d agree with that but it was all of Europe running at the bhp we were back then as some one pointed out the Germans were happy with a figure much less than that in the 70s.
I agree with your point that a higher power truck can be more efficient and economical when driven properly as it is less stressed but diesel engines are about torque not power so I can see how a conventional big diesel engine can be efficient and economical as you don’t have to rev the nuts off it but your two stroke which seems to need revs which just creates noise and burns expensive fuel hasnt got me convinced.
A fire engine is a total different beast all you want is to get to the fire quickly and sod the fuel economy.
In a haulage truck every extra bit of fuel economy helps that was true in the 70s and now more so.
That’s why the Gardner was popular it was recognised as economical and reliable so you can see why people trusted and speced them but it got to a point where people couldn’t wait forever for a new truck as it was affecting there business so as bewick pointed out you got what was available. It’s similar to how hino picked up sales paccar shut foden no one could supply construction chassis in a reasonable timeframe in a booming construction Market so hino stepped in to a ready made dealer network which had a good relationship with the construction Market and could supply trucks ready boddied straight away so people took a chance
That all sounds like a contradiction.Diesel engines are all about a lot of torque.In the context of big truck diesels that also means a lot of power because power is just the mathematical relationship between engine speed and torque.So if something produces around 400 hp or more,at 2000 rpm or less,that’s exactly the same thing as a (zb) lot of torque.What we’re looking for with a truck diesel,or a fire engine,is something that can make more power at lower rpm.When you take that to it’s logical conclusion bigger is better and more is more and for the umpteenth time just because a two stroke fires twice per revolution does’nt mean that it’s revving much more,sometimes a lot less,to produce a lot more power (torque) ,than a Gardner would be.That’s why Gardners were never highly regarded as fire truck engines and it’s why more people put two stroke truck engines in trucks than zb Gardners and that’s why Detroit Diesel and the US and Australian etc etc truck industry are where they are today and it’s why Gardners and the British truck industry is where it is today.
gingerfold:
If you put your average driver into an unbadged lorry with a 400 bhp engine and then into the same make but with a 500 bhp engine, how many would be able to tell the difference?
Just as long as the extra 100 hp does’nt come at the expense of higher revs to get it trust me you’d know. 
Gents, its Carryfast, please give up. For the sake of your sanity 
What I was trying to say was if you have say a 600 hp truck you can use that extra torque to do the work rather than the power where say you have a 300hp truck moving the weight you are going to end up using more power and revs to keep going when it’s working hard where the bigger power truck will dig in with the tourque at lower revs and use Less fuel.
Out of intrest does anyone know what detroits Market share is in the USA compared to ■■■■■■■ and cat
kr79:
What I was trying to say was if you have say a 600 hp truck you can use that extra torque to do the work rather than the power where say you have a 300hp truck moving the weight you are going to end up using more power and revs to keep going when it’s working hard where the bigger power truck will dig in with the tourque at lower revs and use Less fuel.
Out of intrest does anyone know what detroits Market share is in the USA compared to ■■■■■■■ and cat
So after all the arguing you’re actually agreeing with what I’ve been saying.
So now just imagine it’s the late 1970’s/1980 and I’ve got that 400 hp Bedford TM versus a typical Brit guvnor’s 7 Litre V6 specced one.They both produce max power at the same engine speed (around 2000 rpm) however unlike the 7 Litre my one is producing more power at around 1,200-1,400 rpm than his is at 2000.The same also applies in comparison to the Gardner engine at that same 1,200-1,400 rpm.Now do you understand why the Brits said that the Detroit ‘drinks’ fuel 
.
kr79:
Out of intrest does anyone know what detroits Market share is in the USA compared to ■■■■■■■ and cat
Since Detroit started up in the 1930’s to date One for nmm to answer.
Carryfast:
kr79:
Out of intrest does anyone know what detroits Market share is in the USA compared to ■■■■■■■ and catSince Detroit started up in the 1930’s to date
April 1937: The company was founded by General Motors as the General Motors Engine Division. Its initial product line was the Series 71 engine family, consisting of exclusively inline configurations ranging from one to six cylinders.
The company produces on-highway medium and heavy-duty Diesel engines for the commercial truck market, and for other commercial and automobile use. Engines range from 170 to 560 hp (127 to 418 kW), soon to be expanded to 600 hp (448 kW) with the introduction of the DD16 engine in 2010, for the on-highway market. The Series 60 has been the market share leader since 1992, and combined with the MBE 4000 has 27% of the Class 8 market. Worldwide there are over 1,000,000 Series 60s, and over 350,000 MBE 900s, in operation.
This is a point of interest the Scammell Crusader 6x4 was introduced with the V8 D/D as the standard engine and I know the M.O.D. had a fair few but how many with the D/D as I seem to recall a lot had the Rolls Royce in for whatever reason.
cheers Johnnie
I dont care if you have 710 horses or 290 of them, you are still going to come across two lorries side by side for the next 8 miles on the M1 or M6.
Who was it complaining recently that they only had a 420 to pull bog rolls over Shap?
Firstly it was nowhere near Shap and a good man in a 320 ■■■■■■■ would whoop his arse 