one word QUALITY , something home products seriously have missing 
, if when you first come across a Volvo or Scania you don’t see it - you never will -it’s about how the WHOLE lorry is screwed together from every single nut & bolt & carryfast , a decent truck needs more then BHP , a Bedford TM isn’t in the same league as an F10/12 …sorry mate , but then some people cant see that an Audi is a quality car compared to a Ford 
Carryfast:
The TM 4400 was good enough to blow the F10/12 out of the water but the problem was that it was too far ahead of the British customers’ demands in power outputs not behind them unless you know a way of getting 400 hp + at 2,000 rpm from an F12 motor while at the F12’s maximum output at 2,000 rpm + the 8V92 in the TM would only have needed to be turning over at around 1,500 rpm .
WRONG!
Both engines same have the same output, but Volvo’s peak torque is at a lower speed. The spec. sheets do not mention SFC, but no prizes for guessing which would have been best. The Volvo 385bhp engine was introduced in 1979, Bedford was a little later in fitting the 8v92, IIRC. Europe wins this battle, at least on European soil.
Saviems suggestion of Leyland and Bedford merging may have worked ,but anyone suggest any of the other companies who may have worked toether and survived,i think the obvious ERF and Foden if only so .both names would have survived i.e ER Foden
Funny enough I had a similar conversation with a friend who is an erf fanatic. He thinks his ec14 is the greatest truck ever and said all these scania v8s etc need reving the nuts off and had to point out the very early ones maybe but anything in the last 30 years is use the torque to do the work. Volvo were one of the pioneers or it
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The TM 4400 was good enough to blow the F10/12 out of the water but the problem was that it was too far ahead of the British customers’ demands in power outputs not behind them unless you know a way of getting 400 hp + at 2,000 rpm from an F12 motor while at the F12’s maximum output at 2,000 rpm + the 8V92 in the TM would only have needed to be turning over at around 1,500 rpm .WRONG!
1
0Both engines same have the same output, but Volvo’s peak torque is at a lower speed. The spec. sheets do not mention SFC, but no prizes for guessing which would have been best. The Volvo 385bhp engine was introduced in 1979, Bedford was a little later in fitting the 8v92, IIRC. Europe wins this battle, at least on European soil.
It’s not the ‘peaks’ that matter it’s the actual curves right across the rev range and it’s the lower peak power rpm figure that gives a better idea of how far lower down in the rev range that it can hold a decent torque figure compared to the Volvo and the type of work that either engine will be doing in the real world without needing to run it far up the rev range.From memory there are many different ratings figures for the Detroit engine depending on customer requirements the less the rating the better the fuel consumption.From memory Tricentrol were certainly fitting the 8V92 into the TM before 1979 and certainly with much better ratings than just 385 hp.
■■■■■■■■.
kr79:
Funny enough I had a similar conversation with a friend who is an erf fanatic. He thinks his ec14 is the greatest truck ever and said all these scania v8s etc need reving the nuts off and had to point out the very early ones maybe but anything in the last 30 years is use the torque to do the work. Volvo were one of the pioneers or it
I currently drive a 6 x 4 Daf 460 bhp usually at 44 tons and it pulls right down to 1000 rpm which is on the edge of the green band,if i change up at 1400 rpm at half gear intervals it drops to 1200rpm ,its a willing puller but im not a fan of the CF cab.Which was the first of the newer low reving engines introduced ,was it the E290 ■■■■■■■■
[zb]
anorak:
■■■■■■■■.
LOL he gets you that way 
Hi fellers,
I like to think that most drivers on this site had no substance what so ever as which lorries the boss bought, maybe we liked to think we did but I think not, we where given a motor and off you went, of all the motors I’ve driven over the years and that’s nearly all makes including yanks I don’t think I could tell you the h/p or what engine it had and for that matter couldn’t careless as long as the wages and work where ok I drove it, if you didn’t like it there’s the gate. If the motor was heavy on fuel or broke down regularly or slow it was never going to be my problem, I was being paid by the hour and if the motor was useless or broke down or was slow I was still being paid, If it broke down I’d try and fix it myself which was most times successful, having worked abroad for 25 years the boss relied on me to keep the motor going and get the load to its destination in one piece. In over 50 years I only had to be dragged in 5 times, not bad going. I have over the years spoken to many bosses, why not try this motor or that one or even get a demonstrator in for a few weeks to see how it performs, what answer do you get “You’ll never see one of them motor in my yard ever” five years later they have a whole fleet of them, but as we know they know best, so keep your mouth shut and get on with it. Now don’t get me wrong I have enjoyed every minute of my time as a driver and tried my best for the companies I have worked for, throughout the good times and the bad times and would never have changed one moment of it, and the challenges different lorries can pose. From my point of view as a driver Euro lorries out gunning British marks, to me it came down to two things that was cab comfort and reliability, as to engine size and power that has never been my king always the wages, the biggest engine motor I’ve ever had was an F89 but it was still my right foot that made it go fast which was not very often, give me the biggest and most comfortable cab with Perkins P6 underneath I’ll be happy as a dog in sh.t.
Ossie
ramone:
kr79:
Funny enough I had a similar conversation with a friend who is an erf fanatic. He thinks his ec14 is the greatest truck ever and said all these scania v8s etc need reving the nuts off and had to point out the very early ones maybe but anything in the last 30 years is use the torque to do the work. Volvo were one of the pioneers or itI currently drive a 6 x 4 Daf 460 bhp usually at 44 tons and it pulls right down to 1000 rpm which is on the edge of the green band,if i change up at 1400 rpm at half gear intervals it drops to 1200rpm ,its a willing puller but im not a fan of the CF cab.Which was the first of the newer low reving engines introduced ,was it the E290 ■■■■■■■■
Not sure but to be fair the big ■■■■■■■ may have been a great drivers engine but it was never frugal on juice. I know the f10 came out with a lower hp engine than the f88 but was better on torque and fuel economy.
Wasn’t the Detroit known as the screaming eagle due to the fact you had to keep it reving to get any kind of performance out of it not use the low down torque to keep fuel use down.
ramone:
[zb]
anorak:
■■■■■■■■.LOL he gets you that way
Brilliantly argued and educated position to take when you’ve got to decide which motor to use when the company and your job depends on it.Which is probably why I managed to get a job in the truck manufacturing industry that was dependent on exports to markets that knew better while many of those at Leyland were busy working on the T 45. 
OssieD:
Hi fellers,
I have over the years spoken to many bosses, why not try this motor or that one or even get a demonstrator in for a few weeks to see how it performs, what answer do you get “You’ll never see one of them motor in my yard ever” five years later they have a whole fleet of them, but as we know they know best
It’s something along those lines,but in respect of the feedback that the British manufacturers were getting from their customers,in regard to the possibility of being able to develop and sell them something better,when it mattered,and then 5-10 years later they went for a whole fleet of the things but this time built by the foreign manufacturers who already had all the development and production costs covered by their more advanced thinking domestic customers. 
Just think if you had grown a pair you could have been the biggest haulier in Europe now as you know more than every haulier in Europe you could have about 10000 two stroke Bedfords and kenworths on the road by now
kr79:
Just think if you had grown a pair you could have been the biggest haulier in Europe now as you know more than every haulier in Europe you could have about 10000 two stroke Bedfords and kenworths on the road by now
If every driver,including me,in the country had the start up capital to have done the same thing,just think where rates would have been in the transport industry by now and how many of us would have gone bankrupt out of those who started and in which case what the market for all those imported euro wagons would be like. 
But luckily for me there’s plenty of operators in New Zealand and,unlike the British one,the still existent Australian truck manufacturing industry to prove my case without me even having to have got involved to prove the point. 
ramone:
Which was the first of the newer low reving engines introduced ,was it the E290 ■■■■■■■■
Yes, with the motto “Let it lug”! Or, in other words, drive it like a Gardner 
240 Gardner:
ramone:
Which was the first of the newer low reving engines introduced ,was it the E290 ■■■■■■■■Yes, with the motto “Let it lug”! Or, in other words, drive it like a Gardner
If I remember correctly, Scania’s DS14.01 (LB141) preceded the E290 by about a year, having been introduced in 1976 or '77. The first one was Mack’s Maxidyne, launched in USA in 1967, before the market realised it wanted it, which makes its creators true innovators and heroes, in my book. I would love to read about the development of this engine and the people involved. Does anyone know of any books on the subject?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_Truck … yne_engine
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … _n6079880/
kr79:
ramone:
kr79:
Funny enough I had a similar conversation with a friend who is an erf fanatic. He thinks his ec14 is the greatest truck ever and said all these scania v8s etc need reving the nuts off and had to point out the very early ones maybe but anything in the last 30 years is use the torque to do the work. Volvo were one of the pioneers or itI currently drive a 6 x 4 Daf 460 bhp usually at 44 tons and it pulls right down to 1000 rpm which is on the edge of the green band,if i change up at 1400 rpm at half gear intervals it drops to 1200rpm ,its a willing puller but im not a fan of the CF cab.Which was the first of the newer low reving engines introduced ,was it the E290 ■■■■■■■■
Not sure but to be fair the big ■■■■■■■ may have been a great drivers engine but it was never frugal on juice. I know the f10 came out with a lower hp engine than the f88 but was better on torque and fuel economy.
Wasn’t the Detroit known as the screaming eagle due to the fact you had to keep it reving to get any kind of performance out of it not use the low down torque.
When you realise that the common spec ordered for the Detroit powered TM in Britain was the non turbocharged 7 Litre V6 running at 32 t,as used in buses in the states,it’s easy to understand how it got that reputation here.
However it’s specific torque and power outputs,when compared with other engines of the time,on a like for like basis,in the case of turbocharging or non turbocharged,were actually usually better.
240 Gardner:
ramone:
Which was the first of the newer low reving engines introduced ,was it the E290 ■■■■■■■■Yes, with the motto “Let it lug”! Or, in other words, drive it like a Gardner
I was invited to drive the first F16 at the dealers in Hull and the test route was from their place on a circular route involving two climbs. I was impressed with the power as I sailed up Boothferry Hill from Darleys roundabout but coming back towards Myton Bridge, the lights were against me, suddenly they changed and I used the same idea “let it lug” to go through the lights and up the bridge. Mike the workshop foreman was panicking about broken crankshafts as I watched the rev counter rising. It was an impressive motor in its early form!
Just to put the Australian Truck Manufacturing Industry into context because Carryfast seems so determined to keep quoting it, then in 2011 Paccar was the market leader in its heavy sector with sales to a value of 3.0% of the entire Australian Vehicle Manufacturing Industry revenue, Volvo was a very close second with 2.9%, and Iveco had 1.5%. No other manufacturer was large enough to justify an individual mention. The entire Australian Vehicle Manufacturing industry produced vehicles to a value of 10.6 billion Australian Dollars, (roughly £7.2 billion). The industry there has declined by 9.0% in the last 5 years due to the worldwide recession. My source is the IBIS World Industry Report C2811 - Motor Vehicle Manufacturing in Australia. Unfortunately in my trawl through the 60 odd pages of the report I could not find chassis build figures, but using a benchmark European equivalent selling price of £70,000 for a premium spec. tractor unit then I calculate that Paccar produced approximately 3,300 chassis, but it was probably far fewer if the cost of, for example, roadtrain prime movers are factored in.
Do paccar sell any dafs down under?