I worked in the middle east, and dealt with a number of odd trucks; Dodge 500’s. Cypriot M.A.N [KMC] copies, Mercedes , Leyland Constructors
and various Internationals. My main interest was which would get to their destinations. The Leylands were not too good at this, and were a pain in the [zb]
to get support for. I also ran Nissan UB tippers, too.
I probably had a hard edge, but if it didn’t start in the morning, then I wanted it working in the afternoon. …
Our prime movers for cement bulkers were InternationalPaystar 5000’s. Crude, admitedly, but always, but always got there!
The Constuctor6’s were , not brilliant, and with poor back up. I would really have liked to run British machinery, but I was a small
cog in a business without sentiment.
If it runs, it’s right. If it isn’t running, then…OUT!
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
I think…blah blah blah…
anyone who was involved in the British truck manufacturing industry…
…would laugh out loud at the majority of your opinions.
Anyone who has seen a typical IC engine torque curve would disagree with your analysis of the specifications I posted above. Your conclusions are diametrically opposed to the obvious.
No one with the most basic knowledge of business would blame the customers for a company’s failure, for buying the wrong product, when that was the product that was being supplied.
If you ever worked in the automotive industry, what did you actually do? Don’t tell me, your brush was the only one with the bristles on the top, and it was the customers’ fault that their yards were cleaner than yours.
There’s no such thing as a ‘typical’ IC engine torque curve and there’s nothing within those figures to suggest that the 8V92 isn’t able to do more work at less engine speed than the F12’s motor just as I’ve said and the fact that the F12’s motor’s torque ‘peak’ is given at slightly lower rpm that doesn’t mean that it’s putting out ‘more’ torque than the 8V92 throughout the rev range,which is dependent on how ‘flat’ the curves are across the range,not on the relatively small differences,in this case,as to where the peaks are and as I’ve said the fact that the 8V92 is able to put out around the same amount of maximum power,at lower peak rpm,means that it had to have done that by sustaining more torque,up to lower rpm,than the F12 motor could,which obviously had to multiply less torque by more rpm to get around the same power according to the figures.In addition to which,as I’ve said from memory,the 8V92 was available in the 4400 with better ratings than those listed.
Which probably explains why there’s been a lot more Detroit two stroke powered emergency vehicles used around the world than Volvo powered ones. 
Anyone with the most basic knowledge of truck manufacture knows that a company can only survive by producing goods that it can sell and in this case the only products that would sell at the time were the wrong ones.Which is why when the British market did eventually decide to change it’s mind the British manufacturers had zb all ready to sell. 
As for the job that I did.If I could have earn’t a much by just sweeping the yard than having to work in the factory considering how hot it was working under a glass roof with the sun shining down through it,in overalls,during the Summer of 1976,that’s what I’d have preferred to be doing. 
Later when I’d had enough of working inside in the factory and got involved with testing the products instead of helping to make them that’s when I learnt just how good American components can make a truck go. 
FFS, and this is the first time I have sworn in 120-odd posts.
There is a typical torque curve shape. It starts low, at low engine speed, then it reaches a peak, and then it comes down again, continuing to decrease until the governed speed. This curve shape is typical of all types of engine, from chainsaw to battleship. If two engines develop the same peak torque but one (Volvo) has its torque peak at a lower engine speed (1300 rather than 1400rpm), the two curves, when plotted on the same axes, will cross at an engine speed somewhere between the peak torque speeds of the two engines. At engine speeds below this crossing point, the engine with the lower peak torque speed will develop the higher torque of the two. Therefore, the Volvo engine will have greater performance at all engine speeds above idle and below approximately 1350rpm.
This is what you said earlier, after I had posted the specifications of the two engines: “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.” Of course the Detroit engine will have more torque around its lower peak power speed (1900rpm), but “far lower down in the rev range,” as you say, the Volvo engine develops more torque.
I hereby apologise to all Trucknet members and God, for this tedious dialogue, but I need to know just how far into baby talk one must descend, to make this man admit he is wrong. Just once.
[zb]
anorak:
FFS, and this is the first time I have sworn in 120-odd posts.There is a typical torque curve shape. It starts low, at low engine speed, then it reaches a peak, and then it comes down again, continuing to decrease until the governed speed. This curve shape is typical of all types of engine, from chainsaw to battleship. If two engines develop the same peak torque but one (Volvo) has its torque peak at a lower engine speed (1300 rather than 1400rpm), the two curves, when plotted on the same axes, will cross at an engine speed somewhere between the peak torque speeds of the two engines. At engine speeds below this crossing point, the engine with the lower peak torque speed will develop the higher torque of the two. Therefore, the Volvo engine will have greater performance at all engine speeds above idle and below approximately 1350rpm.
This is what you said earlier, after I had posted the specifications of the two engines: “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.” Of course the Detroit engine will have more torque around its lower peak power speed (1900rpm), but “far lower down in the rev range,” as you say, the Volvo engine develops more torque.
I hereby apologise to all Trucknet members and God, for this tedious dialogue, but I need to know just how far into baby talk one must descend, to make this man admit he is wrong. Just once.
Total bs.For the umpteenth time peaks mean zb all.Chainsaws to zb battleships.Assuming that the new 700 V8 Scania motor is somewhere between the two how do you explain this ?.
scania.com/Images/P10401EN%2 … 189162.pdf
As for the figures given for the F12 v 8V92 for exemple at peak power the Volvo has multiplied around 985 lbs/ft by 2050 rpm to make it whereas the 8V92 has multiplied around 1,066 lbs ft by 1,900 to make the same power output.It’s managed to do that because it has a flatter torque curve and the same will apply below the relative peak torque ‘amounts’ of each motor.
The curves published in that link just do not show anything below 1000RPM. If they did, they would show the torque increasing gradually to the maximum. Or does that engine develop no torque at all below 1000RPM? Does it stall dead as soon as the rev counter dips to 999RPM?
Now, based on the figures given in the specifications we have both seen, which engine- Detroit or Volvo- develops more torque below about 1350RPM? A one-word answer, please. To help you consider your answer, imagine that a man is pointing a gun at you. He knows the right answer, and will shoot if you get it wrong. If you don’t know, or feel a paragraph coming on, your best chance is to guess. The gunman has been told to expect a one-word answer and the only possible answers are “Detroit” and “Volvo.”
Normal service will resume shortly. In the meantime, here is some soothing silence.
Carryfast:
If I read the OP’s question right he’s referring to the heavy end of the market not the middle or lightweight end.
Nothing in the OP suggests the conversation is solely about artics.
Carryfast:
I don’t think I’ve ever said US good Euro bad.What I have said is that compared to the European and Scandinavian trucks that the British industry needed to compete with when it mattered during the 1970’s it was ‘‘British’’ bad ‘‘Euro/Scandinavian’’ good ‘‘and’’ ‘‘US’’ at least as good as ‘‘Euro/Scandinavian’’ if not better.
Maybe not in so many words but it’s certainly the impression you leave. But I haven’t read every single post of yours (I haven’t got that long) so I may well ahve gone off half-cocked.
Carryfast:
They also seem to get even more upset when anyone,who was involved in the ‘‘British’’ truck manufacturing industry,when it mattered, then dares to defend those workers who made up the industry at the time,by putting the blame where it belongs on the backward demands of the customers in the domestic market,and the resulting stalling in development of British trucks that it caused,as being the actual reason as to why ‘‘British’’ trucks were so far behind the competition.
Here you go again. “Backward demands of the customers in the domestic market,and the resulting stalling in development of British trucks that it caused”. If all UK operators were offered by British manufacturers were outdated designs, cold draughty cabs and under-powered engines (with one or two exceptions) what choice did they have? Either keep buying what they knew (or were beginning to realise) were inferior products in the hope they could keep them going (and possibly wanting to keep home-grown makers afloat), or go buy a European wagon. In both cases you blame the customer and as any 15 year old working at MuckDonalds can tell you that’s the shortest way to loss and ruin known.
Carryfast:
Although why you’ve chosen to base that on the light-middleweight sector is anyone’s guess but probably because you know that anyone in any of the markets where Euro and US compete with each other in the heavyweight sector,without trade barriers,like European Type Approval,in markets such as New Zealand would laugh at the idea.
Risible. NZ has no native car or truck manufacturers and imports all its vehicles, so of course it’s lowered tariffs. US metal has a loyal following certainly, but only at the heavy end. Your narrowing of the subject to heavyweight vehicles is deliberate since it’s obvious Jap trucks dominate the middleweight and lightweight sectors, which thus blows your “US trucks are superior” meme out of the water.
Carryfast:
As for the difference between a so called ‘assembly’ operation or total in house manufacture in most cases it’s the so called ‘assembly’ idea that allows the flexibility to remain competitive in the long term. … In general the idea of assembly just means the flexibility to choose the best components for the job.
True yet irrelevant to the point I made - your insistence that Oz has a truck manufacturing base is wrong and so are all the arguments you base on it.
Carryfast:
There’s no contradiction between my case that British customers blindly insisted on calling for outdated designs to the detriment of progress in the British truck manufactruring industry and then the fact that those customers ‘eventually’ realised the error of their ideas and ‘then’ decided to jump ship and go over to the more advanced Euro and Scandinavian designs…
See my response above. In your view then, the customer (the UK hauliers) is wrong. I sincerely hope that your POV wasn’t typical of the insider’s view in the British truck making industry, otherwise we’ve just found our culprit.
Carryfast:
At which point ‘if’ the British had been able to provide arguably even better US based designs,as in the case of the new Australian manufacturing (so called assembly) operations had done,it would have at least had a better chance to compete with those Euro/Scandinavian products.That’s assuming that the British operators had been as open minded to the idea of buying US based trucks as their New Zealand counterparts were and have been to date.
It’s not a “so-called assembly operation” it was and IS an assembly operation. If the US product was so superior, how is it (import tariffs aside) so few ever made it to the UK? And again, you - possibly deliberately - ignore the fact that a great deal of UK truck sales were middle- and lightweight - where’s your much vaunted US superiority there? And what has the NZ market now to do with conditions in the UK 40+ years ago? Where does this assumption that NZ wouldn’t import European vehicles if it wasn’t in the Antipodes come from? If US product is so good, why is NZ buying Japanese trucks by the boatload?
Carryfast:
Although judging by this topic open mindedness,to the possibility of the idea that US trucks can be as good as,if not better than,Euro trucks,is something that would have been lacking,at least in those having had no experience of markets in the big wide world out there outside Europe.In which case not surprisingly the British truck manufacturing industry wouldn’t have stood a chance.Which history shows is actually what happened.
Of course, yes, we’re back to it all being down to the “closed-mindedness” of the UK operator. It couldn’t have been that these people, who’d figured out they could turn a quid easier if they bought Volvo/ Scania/ MB/ DAF, had looked at the US product and realised they were too big and too heavy, could it? It couldn’t be that distribution fleet operators looked at the US product and couldn’t see anything on offer that suited their needs, could it?
So you worked in a fire engine factory that hardly makes you lord stokes.
kr79:
So you worked in a fire engine factory that hardly makes you lord stokes.
i dont think he`s mentioned where he worked or what he did but the safe moneys going on him being a toilet attendent as for Lord Stokes he did more damage than most to Leyland and its subsidaries
If you have followed the various threads he has hijacked he has mentioned been involved in building the airport type fire engines where I can see and agree the Detroit engine offering high power for good top speed and acceleration has its merits but in the world of haulage where fuel economy matters its a different matter carryfast can’t see that.
Totally agree about lord stokes just the first name that I could think of
Is the Lord Stokes who has appeared on “Have i got news for you” the same fella ?
anyone fancy a pint
fredm:
anyone fancy a pint
Just where i`m going very soon with yesterdays football bet winnings £300 up 
[zb]
anorak:
The curves published in that link just do not show anything below 1000RPM. If they did, they would show the torque increasing gradually to the maximum. Or does that engine develop no torque at all below 1000RPM? Does it stall dead as soon as the rev counter dips to 999RPM?Now, based on the figures given in the specifications we have both seen, which engine- Detroit or Volvo- develops more torque below about 1350RPM? A one-word answer, please. To help you consider your answer, imagine that a man is pointing a gun at you. He knows the right answer, and will shoot if you get it wrong. If you don’t know, or feel a paragraph coming on, your best chance is to guess. The gunman has been told to expect a one-word answer and the only possible answers are “Detroit” and “Volvo.”
Normal service will resume shortly. In the meantime, here is some soothing silence.
The reason why the curves in that link don’t show anything below 1,000 is because there’s no point because what matters (and what the manufacturers want to show,to those that know the difference between a chainsaw motor and a truck engine 
) ,is the ‘spread’ of torque across the useable rev range,in this case from about 1000 rpm ‘unless’ that is someone wants to try the idea of using something like the 620 in derated form in a 40 tonner governed to about 1,200 rpm max.You’ve already shown the limits of your understanding and then just seem to be adding to the bs you’re coming out with based on it.
Bearing in mind that just seeing the torque peaks isn’t the same thing as seeing the actual torque ‘curves’,of the 8V92 and the F12 motors,and bearing in mind that what we have seen is a figure of 1,600 nm at 1300 rpm for the F12 and 1,615 nm at 1,400 rpm for the 8V92,I’ll reverse your question in what is it that makes you think that the F12 motor is actually putting out ‘more’ torque than the 8V92 at any point in the useable rev range of each motor and bearing in mind that the figures already prove that the 8V92 is putting out as much peak power at lower rpm as the F12 motor is putting out at higher rpm.I think you’re putting 2+2 together and coming up with 5 based on the stupid idea that a chainsaw motor is the same as a truck engine and it’s where the relative torque peaks are in the rev range,instead of how flat the relative torque curves are either side of those torque peaks,that matter.
However based on your understanding of simple engine output calculations I wouldn’t want to be standing within two miles of you if any one was stupid enough to give you a gun.
Bang.
kr79:
If you have followed the various threads he has hijacked he has mentioned been involved in building the airport type fire engines where I can see and agree the Detroit engine offering high power for good top speed and acceleration has its merits but in the world of haulage where fuel economy matters its a different matter carryfast can’t see that.
Totally agree about lord stokes just the first name that I could think of
If Detroit engines had only been any good for emergency vehicle applications and not commercial highway use they wouldn’t have sold enough around the world to have been able to develop their future products and there’s no way that any of the so called know it all europeans like Mercedes would have wanted to waste any money and investment in getting involved with a load of American idiots who know zb all about how to make truck components like engines for example.
As for Lord Stokes the only surprise to me is why the zb he didn’t just walk away and try to get a job in the colonies instead of trying to do the impossible of trying to run the equivalent of a brothel and a brewery in zb Saudi Arabia.
[zb]
anorak:
Bang.
You missed anorak i think he`s still moving
One of the reasons is parked on the right of this line up !!A Water Buffalo would have been more reliable than a Leyland Buffalo !! Cheers Bewick.
History tells us that American automotive products have never enjoyed a healthy following in this country . Agreed , some component parts have been used , but with the exception of construction & agricultural equipment the products from their car , van & lorry makers have seen almost insignificant sales volume . We were left with excess American stock after the war effort ,Jeeps , Diamond T s etc , but there was little or no effort by them to even attempt sales after that . It is only relatively recently that Jeeps ( as part of the rise in 4x4 Chelsea Tractors ) & other American cars ( the Chrysler 300c etc ) have become that bit more popular , in the UK .
If we were so infatuated with our own Fred Flintstone type UK built lorries , why did the American involvement in Britains lorry manufacturing industry never materialise in full & save us from continuing on the path to our own downfall . They were more than happy to open engine plants ( ■■■■■■■ ) , we had Caterpillar plant factory , IH tractors etc , although ■■■■■■■ & Caterpillars Scottish ventures still leave a sour taste with many .
Perhaps they too would have taken the grants , startup packages & development zone assistance , then after realisation sank in , packed their bags & cleared off .
Perhaps it was because they saw no incentive to try & move in to our paltry & insignificant ( to them ) sales territory or even that of Europe & were happy to let European manufacturers remain in their own zone & the Americans would stick to their home market aided by a rapid expansion into Australia .
Perhaps , the money men saw it as more beneficial to leave the vehicle side of Europe well alone & instead enlighten us with the delights of their contribution to world health , the delights of McDonalds , Burger King Pizza Hut etc .
Purely my thoughts , any opinions , arguments for & against etc may well be largely ignored
Well Gentlemen, here I am, at the end of yet another long day, and yet another looms for the morrow, but am I happy, yes , yes, yes, of course I am. Why, because I am the eternal optomist, I have a great family, good friends from all around the Globe, incredibly great memories of this industry, and the remarkable characters that people it at all levels, and all areas of the industry, good friends and associates who I can identify with on this amazing electronic media!!!. Carryfast, I am truly sad for you, the people who inhabit this electronic medium are not idiots, their wisdom and experience have been gained in many ways, some very hard and cruel, some less so, have you ever started work on a Monday, with all your commitments to meet, and known that you have to generate the income to meet them by the week end? Well, if you have not, just listen to those who have, remember, all can share, and delight in each others experience, and so should you! No one person is to blame for the demise of manufacturing in the UK, but many different factors contributed. Look at the overall picture, learn, accept others greater knowledge, contribute your own, but do so with humility, for none of us is greater than the next, and perhaps we may at last arrive at a reasoned conclusion to the original title of the thread. I am away to the Bollinger, a pleasant end to an evening, introduced to me by a very good friend, a Frenchman, whose operation in the 70s included some 700 vehicles, and was a most wide thinking and open minded man, who held no predjucies,( considering that his family had been executed by an occupying force some 30years before). Bon Chance mes amis, Cheerio for now.