It should be remembered that in the 50’s and 60’s you could not take your statuary breaks and rest periods in the cab so sleeper cabs were just extra tare weight so would not go down well with most Transport firms. The UK was very slow in putting a minimum power to weight ratio into law and for an Industry that before the motorways were built were running on average a 200 mile night trunk, a day shunt and then return i.e Liverpool to London, tip and turn, back to Liverpool, this would be a 11 hour night ( 10 hours on the BRS ) this was based on the old 20 mph speed limit ( BRS @ 30 mph ) and remembering until the C & U changes in 1964 Artics and 8 Wheelers operated at 24 ton gross usual payload of around 16 tons, so yes we were lumbered with gardner 6 LW’s with 112 bhp, Leyland octo’s with the 600 @ 124 bhp and the AEC with a 9.6 @ 124 bhp all these would normally have 4 speed plus crawler only behind them and some times pull draw bars. It is true that in the 50’s AEC offered as options on the Mk 3 8 wheeler the 11.3 150 bhp engine and or a 6 speed box but very few companies would buy these. When Volvo and Scania started selling their Motors in the UK they had far more Driver comforts and performance than your average British truck who’s manufacturers were still asking what a Motorway was never mind how it effected their products. Suttons was one of the companies I worked for and their old Atkinsons that I drove were older than me and their Gardner engines were older than me but they would plod up and down the road nightly sipping the Derv and never breaking down and if you had a puncture you changed the wheel yourself. Their was too much rubbish coming out of our Car manufacturers so it should not surprise us if the Truck manufacturers did’nt treat us the same. We’ve had the Commer stroker which made a lovely loud noise but was flawed, as the same with the Foden stroker and the DD stroker the same but juicey. Of course the Continental Lorry’s were much better, with the sort of management running our Industries who were incompetent and listened to the accountants to much and not their Customers who to be fair were very warry of change never mind the poor Drivers of their products who did’nt count, after all they knew best and you know, nothings changed!..Tony.
ramone:
Wheel Nut:
We have been out for a pint and on the way to the pub, my mate was rambling on about American trucks, if I didn’t know better I could have sworn he was Carryfast.He had seen a picture of a Transcontinental and asked if they were the biggest truck. I said they probably were in the day but the MAN TGA and Magnum dwarf them nowadays.
But then the, “yeah but those American bonnet control
trucks are better”
Define better…
Well bigger, like Americans fatter…
longer… Yeah 53’ trailers
bigger cabs… not necessarily, tiny driving position
big sleeper cabs… yeah huge dog kennels on the back to keep clutter free
Enough was enough… “They look good on 1970’s films with a bit of totty in them, they carry less than European trucks, they use more fuel, they are still primitive and I bet they rattle.” I also used the HD argument and ordered another pint
Are Volvo getting into the USA markets now i know they own White but thought the american drivers didn
t like the cabs and were no fans of synchro boxes......doesnt that smack of people not wanting to change their ways and go for more modern thinking,a bit like those english hauliers who wouldn`t buy Bedford TMs with DD V8s ?
There’s a big difference between the issue of Brit customers preferring Gardners instead of the turbocharged 8V92 and Americans preferring what they’ve got when what they’ve got is probably better.In the former case it was just ingorance on the part of customers in the latter case it’s rightly’if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ because they’re right a non synchro box is better unless you’re a hopeless driver who can’t get on with it. 
On the subject of two stroke diesel being a so called ‘flawed’ design the fact is that no one is looking at the idea on a like for like comparison with four stroke technology,such as in the in the context of using much higher advanced levels of turbocharging to build on the efficiency that the 8V92 showed/s is possible and modern electronic engine management.
The fact is that on a like for like basis a two stroke diesel can provide better levels of specific torque/ BMEP than a four stroke can which provides much better scope for getting better torque outputs at lower engine speeds and shipping firms are’nt exactly in the business of using more fuel than they need to and guess what 
.It’s two stroke diesel technology that they’re finding is the answer to better efficiency. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
Wheel Nut:
We have been out for a pint and on the way to the pub, my mate was rambling on about American trucks, if I didn’t know better I could have sworn he was Carryfast.He had seen a picture of a Transcontinental and asked if they were the biggest truck. I said they probably were in the day but the MAN TGA and Magnum dwarf them nowadays.
But then the, “yeah but those American bonnet control
Define better…
Well bigger, like Americans fatter…
longer… Yeah 53’ trailers
bigger cabs… not necessarily, tiny driving position
big sleeper cabs… yeah huge dog kennels on the back to keep clutter free
Enough was enough… “They look good on 1970’s films with a bit of totty in them, they carry less than European trucks, they use more fuel, they are still primitive and I bet they rattle.” I also used the HD argument and ordered another pint
Are Volvo getting into the USA markets now i know they own White but thought the american drivers didn
t like the cabs and were no fans of synchro boxes......doesnt that smack of people not wanting to change their ways and go for more modern thinking,a bit like those english hauliers who wouldn`t buy Bedford TMs with DD V8s ?There’s a big difference between the issue of Brit customers preferring Gardners instead of the turbocharged 8V92 and Americans preferring what they’ve got when what they’ve got is probably better.In the former case it was just ingorance on the part of customers in the latter case it’s rightly’if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ because they’re right a non synchro box is better unless you’re a hopeless driver who can’t get on with it.
On the subject of two stroke diesel being a so called ‘flawed’ design the fact is that no one is looking at the idea on a like for like comparison with four stroke technology,such as in the in the context of using much higher advanced levels of turbocharging to build on the efficiency that the 8V92 showed/s is possible and modern electronic engine management.
The fact is that on a like for like basis a two stroke diesel can provide better levels of specific torque/ BMEP than a four stroke can which provides much better scope for getting better torque outputs at lower engine speeds and shipping firms are’nt exactly in the business of using more fuel than they need to and guess what
I wonder why non of the big european engine manufacturers build 2 strokes then??
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Wheel Nut:
We have been out for a pint and on the way to the pub, my mate was rambling on about American trucks, if I didn’t know better I could have sworn he was Carryfast.He had seen a picture of a Transcontinental and asked if they were the biggest truck. I said they probably were in the day but the MAN TGA and Magnum dwarf them nowadays.
But then the, “yeah but those American bonnet control
Define better…
Well bigger, like Americans fatter…
longer… Yeah 53’ trailers
bigger cabs… not necessarily, tiny driving position
big sleeper cabs… yeah huge dog kennels on the back to keep clutter free
Enough was enough… “They look good on 1970’s films with a bit of totty in them, they carry less than European trucks, they use more fuel, they are still primitive and I bet they rattle.” I also used the HD argument and ordered another pint
Are Volvo getting into the USA markets now i know they own White but thought the american drivers didn
t like the cabs and were no fans of synchro boxes......doesnt that smack of people not wanting to change their ways and go for more modern thinking,a bit like those english hauliers who wouldn`t buy Bedford TMs with DD V8s ?There’s a big difference between the issue of Brit customers preferring Gardners instead of the turbocharged 8V92 and Americans preferring what they’ve got when what they’ve got is probably better.In the former case it was just ingorance on the part of customers in the latter case it’s rightly’if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ because they’re right a non synchro box is better unless you’re a hopeless driver who can’t get on with it.
On the subject of two stroke diesel being a so called ‘flawed’ design the fact is that no one is looking at the idea on a like for like comparison with four stroke technology,such as in the in the context of using much higher advanced levels of turbocharging to build on the efficiency that the 8V92 showed/s is possible and modern electronic engine management.
The fact is that on a like for like basis a two stroke diesel can provide better levels of specific torque/ BMEP than a four stroke can which provides much better scope for getting better torque outputs at lower engine speeds and shipping firms are’nt exactly in the business of using more fuel than they need to and guess what
I wonder why non of the big european engine manufacturers build 2 strokes then??
Was’nt it Lord Bewick himself who said about that ability to look at it from all angles and think outside the box .Just give it time probably when I’m dead and buried they’ll look back and write my epitaph as the bloke who saw the future by looking back at the past from a different angle.
Although if they’ve got any sense they’ll be using LPG not diesel at these prices. A two stroke Merlin putting out around 500 hp at around 500 rpm sounds good to me.
LPG is no good Carryfast, the BTU content is less than it is in diesel, I thought you were all about the power .
Malcolm Nut, you’re in a mischievious mood I see
You’d be surprised at the mpg figures the modern US truck can achieve, you’ve opened up a can of worms here too, because the best of the bunch is the 60 series DD (so now Carryfast will be gloating ) in 12.7ltr pre EGR form this will give you an 8mpg truck, that’s them silly little US gallons too (3.7ish ltrs) there are people running around with over 9mpg US and there’s more to come with a few modifications, synthetic lubes, freeflow exhausts from ported and coated manifold through larger turbo housings to straight through mufflers. Low rolling resistance tyres, direct top gearboxes and decent aerodynamics.
Have a look at www.myguages.com there are a couple of thousand people using this to keep an accurate record of mpg, it also tells you average weight of load, weather conditions, part of the country etc, it’s very good
Small cabs, yeah, but big enough for what you need, the bunks are huge and you walk through nowadays rather than climbing through a hole, I have to say that my current Pete is the best lorry I’ve ever had at doing the job it’s built for
newmercman:
LPG is no good Carryfast, the BTU content is less than it is in diesel, I thought you were all about the powerMalcolm Nut, you’re in a mischievious mood I see
You’d be surprised at the mpg figures the modern US truck can achieve, I have to say that my current Pete is the best lorry I’ve ever had at doing the job it’s built for
And comparing like with like a yank cab over is’nt much different to a euro one except the sleeper still has a lot more space 
But LPG is a lot cheaper than diesel .
It’s just a case now of waiting for those headlines in the transport press mad British designer invents world’s first 27 Litre two stroke LPG fuelled truck engine .
Although maybe a 13.5 litre six cylinder version producing 500 hp at 1,000 rpm would be better.
I refer to ‘Bedford Trucks & Vans in Colour’ by Peter Davies, published by Roundoak in 2003.
Just to remind those who might have forgotten, the eminent truck photographer and writer Peter Davies worked in the PR Department at Bedford for 29 years, so any comments he has about the TM are valid.
Reading his section in the Bedford book about the TM, I quote the following details.
“Eight TM models were unveiled at the 1974 Commercial Vehicle show, all powered by the DD 6V-71, net output 216 bhp at 2100 rpm.” (32.52 tonnes GTW design)
“August 1975 and phase 2 with nine models powered by 500-151 diesels”
“Phase 3 in 1976 with further models from 19 to 42 tonnes design weights powered by DD 8V-71 engines, 296 bhp at 2100 rpm, Dana-Spicer SST.10-103A splitter gearboxes, rear axle 13-tonne design French built hub reduction SoMA 13MR” “There was a 6x4 tractive unit option for UK heavy haulage, or export markets”
“Early TMs, though comfortable to drive were criticised for poor fuel economy - operators typically reported 5-6 mpg from the 6V-71. At the same time fuel tanks were small (43 gallons).” “(Concerned about poor fuel economy Bedford marketed the TM32X with ‘lean’ N60 injectors in place of the standard N65s. These were said to improve fuel consumption by 30% but power output was reduced to 202bhp.)”
“The long term TM factory demonstrator (KTM 180P) placed in service with Western BRS received a disappointing report in 1976. The NFC Group Transport fleet (sic) (I guess that the word Engineer is missing from the textreported poor fuel economy and was not impressed by the vehicle in general. While on appraisal the vehicle clocked 58,156 miles, mainly on long distance steel haulage, and returned 5.96 mpg average fuel consumption. Drivers claimed that it was underpowered compared with their Gardner, Rolls and ■■■■■■■ powered vehicles and had to be ‘flogged’ on hills. Despite this BRS went on to order quite a number of TMs”
“Bedford enjoyed some success in Italy where the TM4400 powered by the 8V-92T sold well. This had 389 bhp on tap.”
(Sales to European markets were disappointing, but TMs with DD engines were good in New Zealand where there was better acceptance of American 2 stroke designs)
“When Bedford finally decided to offer more ■■■■■■■ engines, including the E290 and L10-250, UK operators found the TM more acceptable. sadly the company was to cease truck building at the very time when the TM was beginning to come into its own.”
“In total 12,217 TMs were built.”
No breakdown of the number of DD engined TMs is given and this production run lasted some 10 years.
gingerfold:
I refer to ‘Bedford Trucks & Vans in Colour’ by Peter Davies, published by Roundoak in 2003.Just to remind those who might have forgotten, the eminent truck photographer and writer Peter Davies worked in the PR Department at Bedford for 29 years, so any comments he has about the TM are valid.
Reading his section in the Bedford book about the TM, I quote the following details.
“Eight TM models were unveiled at the 1974 Commercial Vehicle show, all powered by the DD 6V-71, net output 216 bhp at 2100 rpm.” (32.52 tonnes GTW design)
“August 1975 and phase 2 with nine models powered by 500-151 diesels”
“Phase 3 in 1976 with further models from 19 to 42 tonnes design weights powered by DD 8V-71 engines, 296 bhp at 2100 rpm, Dana-Spicer SST.10-103A splitter gearboxes, rear axle 13-tonne design French built hub reduction SoMA 13MR” “There was a 6x4 tractive unit option for UK heavy haulage, or export markets”
“Early TMs, though comfortable to drive were criticised for poor fuel economy - operators typically reported 5-6 mpg from the 6V-71. At the same time fuel tanks were small (43 gallons).” “(Concerned about poor fuel economy Bedford marketed the TM32X with ‘lean’ N60 injectors in place of the standard N65s. These were said to improve fuel consumption by 30% but power output was reduced to 202bhp.)”
“The long term TM factory demonstrator (KTM 180P) placed in service with Western BRS received a disappointing report in 1976. The NFC Group Transport fleet (sic) (I guess that the word Engineer is missing from the textreported poor fuel economy and was not impressed by the vehicle in general. While on appraisal the vehicle clocked 58,156 miles, mainly on long distance steel haulage, and returned 5.96 mpg average fuel consumption. Drivers claimed that it was underpowered compared with their Gardner, Rolls and ■■■■■■■ powered vehicles and had to be ‘flogged’ on hills. Despite this BRS went on to order quite a number of TMs”
“Bedford enjoyed some success in Italy where the TM4400 powered by the 8V-92T sold well. This had 389 bhp on tap.”
(Sales to European markets were disappointing, but TMs with DD engines were good in New Zealand where there was better acceptance of American 2 stroke designs)“When Bedford finally decided to offer more ■■■■■■■ engines, including the E290 and L10-250, UK operators found the TM more acceptable. sadly the company was to cease truck building at the very time when the TM was beginning to come into its own.”
“In total 12,217 TMs were built.”
No breakdown of the number of DD engined TMs is given and this production run lasted some 10 years.
Which just about confirms most of what I’ve been saying about the idea of using 7 and 9 Litre naturally aspirated engines to run at 32 t .
Most of the company’s own engineers at the time,and certainly those who had any dealings with what was going on over at Tricentrol Chassis Developments,would have known what the result of doing that would have been even before the thing would have been built 
.
However those power figures seem a bit under spec from memory it was 271 hp for the 6V71 and 394 hp for the 8V92 although it needs to be remembered that there are different injector specs which might account for the differences.
History might have been very different for Bedford if only they’d have done what I’ve been suggesting in only building the TM with the 8V92 from the start,for 32 t operation,and if only British buyers had the same ideas as those in markets like Italy etc . .However it was the resistance in the home market towards going for higher torque engines at the time when it mattered that stopped that advanced type of thinking from being applied in time for companies like Bedford to survive.
Near the end of page 15 and the question; Were The Continental Lorry’s Much Better ?
Simply put. Yes they were. In 1964 DAF launched the full sleeper cabbed 2600 using an 11.1 litre Leyland 680 engine. Leyland at the time were still supplying engines to many manufacturers including Bedford, Pegaso, DAF and even Scania.
DAF also had the 2000 & 2300 to gain a foothold outside Holland, especially in Belgium and France, with the new plant in Westerlo to feed the demand of European cross border transport.
With the arrival of only 2 dealers in the UK Chipping Sodbury in the South and Ackworth in the North, they had their work cut out but became one of the most reliable dealer networks and breakdown service with ITS (later) DAFAid
The 680 became 11.6 and it served them well for many years. Still my most favoured lorry and with the 2800 it was improved further. Of that, Carryfast and myself agree on something
Wheel Nut:
Near the end of page 15 and the question; Were The Continental Lorry’s Much Better ?Simply put. Yes they were. In 1964 DAF launched the full sleeper cabbed 2600 using an 11.1 litre Leyland 680 engine. Leyland at the time were still supplying engines to many manufacturers including Bedford, Pegaso, DAF and even Scania.
DAF also had the 2000 & 2300 to gain a foothold outside Holland, especially in Belgium and France, with the new plant in Westerlo to feed the demand of European cross border transport.
With the arrival of only 2 dealers in the UK Chipping Sodbury in the South and Ackworth in the North, they had their work cut out but became one of the most reliable dealer networks and breakdown service with ITS (later) DAFAid
The 680 became 11.6 and it served them well for many years. Still my most favoured lorry and with the 2800 it was improved further. Of that, Carryfast and myself agree on something
But if Leyland had put a turbocharged 680 into the Routeman,let alone built something like the 2600/2800 in 1964 (no reason why not) would any buyers here have bought it even in the early-mid 1970’s let alone early 1960’s.Leyland head office probably just said to hell with it the futur’e bright but it’s going to be Dutch not British because the Dutch buyers are cleverer than the British ones .
If Carryfasts theory of british hauliers not buying high bhp engined vehicles is right then why was there such excitement at the original launch of the V8 AEC engine which was destined for great things but unfortunately just like the Marathon was starved of the money to develop it properly? The V8 did sell and this was in 68 so the hauliers were willing to buy high powered vehicles even then but probably that engine and Leylands interference did more to kill 1 great manufacturer than any haulier could ever have done.Gingerfold as already mentioned on this thread that AEC sorted the problems and wanted to relaunch it but Leyland said no!!!
It was not only the hauliers but the customers who wanted the lightest tare weight possible as there was a lot of steel being transported in the 60s and 70s and with a legal gross max. weight of 32 tons they wanted as much as possible on each wagon.
There was one or two firms who bought F88s and then went to F86s due to customers threatening to give the work to other hauliers who could carry more payload.
So reading these pages i think the answer to the original question is they were much more comfortable
ramone:
So reading these pages i think the answer to the original question is they were much more comfortable
ramone, speaking from personal experience there was an effort made by British manufacturers. The Atkinson Viewline was a very comfortable wagon out around 68 “F”/“G” plate and the Scammell Samson was also comfortable and both were a fair bit quieter with power steering and good size mirrors. Both these were quiet enough to have a radio in which you could hear which was not the norm then.
cheers Johnnie
P S these comparisons are from the late 60s and early 70s
sammyopisite:
ramone:
So reading these pages i think the answer to the original question is they were much more comfortableramone, speaking from personal experience there was an effort made by British manufacturers. The Atkinson Viewline was a very comfortable wagon out around 68 “F”/“G” plate and the Scammell Samson was also comfortable and both were a fair bit quieter with power steering and good size mirrors. Both these were quiet enough to have a radio in which you could hear which was not the norm then.
cheers Johnnie
P S these comparisons are from the late 60s and early 70s
How many Viewlines were put on general haulage ?
ramone:
If Carryfasts theory of british hauliers not buying high bhp engined vehicles is right then why was there such excitement at the original launch of the V8 AEC engine which was destined for great things but unfortunately just like the Marathon was starved of the money to develop it properly? The V8 did sell and this was in68 so the hauliers were willing to buy high powered vehicles even then but probably that engine and Leylands interference did more to kill 1 great manufacturer than any haulier could ever have done.Gingerfold as already mentioned on this thread that AEC sorted the problems and wanted to relaunch it but Leyland said no!!!
We’ve already established earlier in the topic that at the time when it all mattered 250 hp was considered a reasonable power output by the customers which does’nt take a genius to work out leaves absolutely no room in the market place for development of a decent V8,or six cylinder motor,putting out 350-400 hp or more which is what is needed to provide the levels of torque output required to make a fuel efficient diesel for hauling 30 t + gross weights.
Bedford did’nt put an inefficient gutless 7 Litre bus engine in the TM by choice when their engineers knew that putting a much more fuel efficient,but much more powerful,engine in it would have been better.The issue is that the guvnors at the time just could’nt get their heads around the fact that they needed to overlook the headline max power outputs and look at BMEP and the torque figures instead.
My ‘theory’ is based on the solid fact that operators at the time preferred to put a naturally aspirated 7 Litre engine in a 32 tonner giving them less mpg and productivety than they would have got by using a 12 Litre turbocharged 400 hp one instead like their US counterparts would have done.
sammyopisite:
It was not only the hauliers but the customers who wanted the lightest tare weight possible as there was a lot of steel being transported in the 60s and 70s and with a legal gross max. weight of 32 tons they wanted as much as possible on each wagon.
There was one or two firms who bought F88s and then went to F86s due to customers threatening to give the work to other hauliers who could carry more payload.
There was a lot of steel being carried in the States too in the 1960’s/70’s but it’s more likeley that the stupid idea of trading a bit of extra payload by using smaller lighter engines for less fuel efficiency would have been dreamt up by British operators not the customers because the extra fuel efficiency provided by big turbocharged engines,under development there at that time, would have outweighed the payload advantages when it was reflected in the rates.However the comparison between an F88 and an F86 is’nt really going to reflect the type of productivety and fuel efficiency advantages provided by more powerful engines,than either of those had,which the Brits needed to be putting in their trucks at that time to beat the Europeans in the torque race.
Carryfast:
ramone:
If Carryfasts theory of british hauliers not buying high bhp engined vehicles is right then why was there such excitement at the original launch of the V8 AEC engine which was destined for great things but unfortunately just like the Marathon was starved of the money to develop it properly? The V8 did sell and this was in68 so the hauliers were willing to buy high powered vehicles even then but probably that engine and Leylands interference did more to kill 1 great manufacturer than any haulier could ever have done.Gingerfold as already mentioned on this thread that AEC sorted the problems and wanted to relaunch it but Leyland said no!!!We’ve already established earlier in the topic that at the time when it all mattered 250 hp was considered a reasonable power output by the customers which does’nt take a genius to work out leaves absolutely no room in the market place for development of a decent V8,or six cylinder motor,putting out 350-400 hp or more which is what is needed to provide the levels of torque output required to make a fuel efficient diesel for hauling 30 t + gross weights.
Bedford did’nt put an inefficient gutless 7 Litre bus engine in the TM by choice when their engineers knew that putting a much more fuel efficient,but much more powerful,engine in it would have been better.The issue is that the guvnors at the time just could’nt get their heads around the fact that they needed to overlook the headline max power outputs and look at BMEP and the torque figures instead.
My ‘theory’ is based on the solid fact that operators at the time preferred to put a naturally aspirated 7 Litre engine in a 32 tonner giving them less mpg and productivety than they would have got by using a 12 Litre turbocharged 400 hp one instead like their US counterparts would have done.
Going round in circles here…you said that british hauliers wouldnt buy high powered lorries but when the V8 AEC came out in around 68 at 247 bhp and 270 bhp+ these very same hauliers bought them ,the same hauliers you said wouldnt buy them so AEC must have known what you are saying now back in the 60s how clever were they?
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
If Carryfasts theory of british hauliers not buying high bhp engined vehicles is right then why was there such excitement at the original launch of the V8 AEC engine which was destined for great things but unfortunately just like the Marathon was starved of the money to develop it properly? The V8 did sell and this was in68 so the hauliers were willing to buy high powered vehicles even then but probably that engine and Leylands interference did more to kill 1 great manufacturer than any haulier could ever have done.Gingerfold as already mentioned on this thread that AEC sorted the problems and wanted to relaunch it but Leyland said no!!!We’ve already established earlier in the topic that at the time when it all mattered 250 hp was considered a reasonable power output by the customers which does’nt take a genius to work out leaves absolutely no room in the market place for development of a decent V8,or six cylinder motor,putting out 350-400 hp or more which is what is needed to provide the levels of torque output required to make a fuel efficient diesel for hauling 30 t + gross weights.
Bedford did’nt put an inefficient gutless 7 Litre bus engine in the TM by choice when their engineers knew that putting a much more fuel efficient,but much more powerful,engine in it would have been better.The issue is that the guvnors at the time just could’nt get their heads around the fact that they needed to overlook the headline max power outputs and look at BMEP and the torque figures instead.
My ‘theory’ is based on the solid fact that operators at the time preferred to put a naturally aspirated 7 Litre engine in a 32 tonner giving them less mpg and productivety than they would have got by using a 12 Litre turbocharged 400 hp one instead like their US counterparts would have done.
Going round in circles here…you said that british hauliers wouldn
t buy high powered lorries but when the V8 AEC came out in around68 at 247 bhp and 270 bhp+ these very same hauliers bought them ,the same hauliers you said wouldnt buy them so AEC must have known what you are saying now back in the 60s how clever were they?
It might have been that those output figures just about scraped into what those operators were prepared to accept just like the naturally aspirated 8V71 Detroit in the Crusader and those clever engineers at Tolpits Lane etc saw what Southall were doing and told head office of the likely results on fuel consumption by simple comaprison with the similarities between both engines in outputs .
Check out the specific torque output and how high up the rev range max power was produced at and it’s as bad as,if not even worse than,the 8V71 considering the size of the Detroit and considering that the yanks were already well on their way to production of the 8V92.
In which case why did’nt Scammell put the 8V92 in the Crusader from the early 1970’s on instead of the 8V71 and Rolls if Leyland thought that the market would accept a big but really powerful V8 .
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
If Carryfasts theory of british hauliers not buying high bhp engined vehicles is right then why was there such excitement at the original launch of the V8 AEC engine which was destined for great things but unfortunately just like the Marathon was starved of the money to develop it properly? The V8 did sell and this was in68 so the hauliers were willing to buy high powered vehicles even then but probably that engine and Leylands interference did more to kill 1 great manufacturer than any haulier could ever have done.Gingerfold as already mentioned on this thread that AEC sorted the problems and wanted to relaunch it but Leyland said no!!!We’ve already established earlier in the topic that at the time when it all mattered 250 hp was considered a reasonable power output by the customers which does’nt take a genius to work out leaves absolutely no room in the market place for development of a decent V8,or six cylinder motor,putting out 350-400 hp or more which is what is needed to provide the levels of torque output required to make a fuel efficient diesel for hauling 30 t + gross weights.
Bedford did’nt put an inefficient gutless 7 Litre bus engine in the TM by choice when their engineers knew that putting a much more fuel efficient,but much more powerful,engine in it would have been better.The issue is that the guvnors at the time just could’nt get their heads around the fact that they needed to overlook the headline max power outputs and look at BMEP and the torque figures instead.
My ‘theory’ is based on the solid fact that operators at the time preferred to put a naturally aspirated 7 Litre engine in a 32 tonner giving them less mpg and productivety than they would have got by using a 12 Litre turbocharged 400 hp one instead like their US counterparts would have done.
Going round in circles here…you said that british hauliers wouldn
t buy high powered lorries but when the V8 AEC came out in around68 at 247 bhp and 270 bhp+ these very same hauliers bought them ,the same hauliers you said wouldnt buy them so AEC must have known what you are saying now back in the 60s how clever were they?It might have been that those output figures just about scraped into what those operators were prepared to accept just like the naturally aspirated 8V71 Detroit in the Crusader and those clever engineers at Tolpits Lane etc saw what Southall were doing and told head office of the likely results on fuel consumption by simple comaprison with the similarities between both engines in outputs
Check out the specific torque output and how high up the rev range max power was produced at and it’s as bad as,if not even worse than,the 8V71 considering the size of the Detroit and considering that the yanks were already well on their way to production of the 8V92.
In which case why did’nt Scammell put the 8V92 in the Crusader from the early 1970’s on instead of the 8V71 and Rolls if Leyland thought that the market would accept a big but really powerful V8
Ifs buts and maybes are littered along the way in most walks of life Carryfast