What went wrong

[sammyopisite]

Carryfast:

sammyopisite:

Carryfast:

kr79:

Carryfast:

ramone:

kr79:
Even now the swedes often use relatively modest powers at 60 ton

They need to speak to Carryfast he will let them know where they are going wrong .

Really .They don’t need me to tell them anything they don’t already know and that I was taught almost 37 years ago.

scania.com/Images/P09301EN%2 … _50164.pdf

yes but there was plenty of 110s doing the same work. Same as now even in sweden there are more r480s than r620s

It would be interesting to see the fuel consumption figures that you’d end up with if you compared a 110 or an F12 and a 140 all running at 50t gross or a 480 v a 620 running at 60t.I’d bet that it would be the the more powerful options in all cases that came out on top and I think the same would apply if you used the bigger engines,in derated form,at 40t.

When we had the "Samson " with D/D V8 at 290 and I had a 250 ■■■■■■■ in my viewline we often ran together carrying the same loads same weight but the samson tared off about 4 tons heavier and the fuel consumption was 3 to 4 for the samson whereas the ■■■■■■■ was around 5 and that was with a straight 6 ZF box whereas the samson had a 15 speed fuller and was a lot heavier on fuel I recall it used to work out that the samson used about a third more fuel than the ■■■■■■■ powered wagon. We also often swapped wagons half way through a run and that made no difference so it was not down to individual drivers.
cheers Johnnie

You’re concentrating on those zb peak power figures again and forgetting all about the fact that,as is still being proved here,the Brits couldn’t tell the difference between a 9 Litre non turbo bus engine v a naturally aspirated 14 litre truck engine or between peak power outputs compared to a torque curve.

In both those cases you’re actually comparing dumb (naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■■ with dumber (non turbo two stroke 9 Litre bus engine used in a heavy top weight truck).Which is why the Americans,being the clever lot that they are,were busy developing much better versions of both engines in turbocharged form.Which were certainly available during the early-mid 1970’s at a time when the Brits were still ordering and using Gardner powered day cabbed heaps at worst or non turbocharged 7 Litre V6 and 9 Litre V8 Detroit bus engines or naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ engines to run in 32t + trucks at best.

It’s all about relative torque curves not peak power outputs and the engine which can put out the most power,at the lowest rpm,running at equivalent weights will,in most cases,be the most fuel efficient and productive.In this case the comparison would be the difference in torque between a (derated) turbocharged 8V92 Detroit compared to the non turbocharged 6V71 or 8V71 and the Volvo F10/F12 at 32t-38t and Scania 140 v the F12 running at around 50t,and now up to date the Scania 480 v the 620 at 60t.Or even a derated 620 running at 40t.

That is far to technical for me I was only a driver and I was able to tell if a wagon was a good motor by the way it did the job in hand the D/D was very good as you would always get a lot more green shield stamps the down side it would take longer to fill up.
cheers Johnnie

[ramone]

You blame the backward thinking hauliers for speccing low powered Gardners and the like but quite a few V8 mandators went on the road between 68 and 70 and from what i can gather it was those very same backward hauliers that were buying them.The V8 was rated around 247 bhp in non turbo charged guise which was pretty high for 68 and if the real culprits responsible for the demise of British truck manufacturing had have opened the ■■■■■ strings a little more instead of pumping money into gas turbines and headless wonders AEC may have died with its name untarnished but then again if those backward hauliers hadnt have bought the V8 then your argument might have had a crumb of substance to it.As for US manufacturers saving our industry …

[trev_h]

Early 70’s all our ■■■■■■■ 290 powered Guys were turbo charged, we also had Rolls 280 turbo Guys as well as crusaders. We had some motors with the 335 turbo ■■■■■■■■ the best place for the Detroit (green grenade) WAS in a bus, fire eng etc. as long as you had some drip trays underneath them to catch the oil !

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Carryfast:

windrush:
I am old enough to remember when the Galaxy’s came over here in the '60’s and raced at Brands Hatch etc, the Mini Coopers pi**ed all over them. No good having oodles of power if you cant go round corners with it, and that goes right back to the pre war days of Auto Union and Mercedes Grand Prix cars when they passed everything on the straights but lost most of it on the bends to 1.5 litre ERA’s.

Pete.

They only time that a mini could p*** all over a Mustang or a Galaxy,let alone a Cobra,is on a mickey mouse track to suit mickey mouse cars.A Kart would be able to p*** all over anything on a zb Kart track.Goodwood,Silverstone,Le Mans or most of the other ‘proper’ circuits in the States are a different matter.

Anyway it seems like you need some information concerning what ‘actually’ happened in the day.

hooniverse.com/2011/06/21/mornin … ie-edition

Hoisted by your own petard, the reason that the Galaxie was winning was down to the British (Scottish) driver, how else can you explain how a tiny 4 cylinder 1600cc engine could beat a 7000cc V8?

DAN GURNEY. The only American to have ever won the BTCC championship

The following season, the Willment, Baillie and Brown Galaxies would duel with Jim Clark and his Lotus Cortina in one of the greatest David vs Goliath matchups in racing history; While Clark ultimately triumphed in the BSCC driver’s championship standings, delivering one of his most iconic performances, the mighty Galaxie always remained the one to beat, wherever it raced.

I think you’ve missed the fact that it wasn’t just Jim Clark who actually won races driving the Galaxy and it would have been interesting to have seen what would have happened if there were no circuits in the championship calender like Crystal Palace etc which suited the smaller cars better than circuits like Silverstone which didn’t.I think remained ‘the one’ to beat is the relevant part at that point of the story.Which seems to contradict the idea that the things couldn’t work on a race track at all outside of the drag strip or NASCAR unlike the Cortina which was a one trick pony of getting around the twisty circuits and nothing else.

Which then raises the question would Z cars have been a lot better if it had been using Mk 2 Zodiacs fitted with a 289 Cobra engine instead of the 6 cylinder motor. Probably still would have been able to sort out Jack Regan’s V6 Granada 15 years later.

[carryfast]

sammyopisite:

Carryfast:

sammyopisite:

Carryfast:

kr79:

Carryfast:

ramone:

kr79:
Even now the swedes often use relatively modest powers at 60 ton

They need to speak to Carryfast he will let them know where they are going wrong .

Really .They don’t need me to tell them anything they don’t already know and that I was taught almost 37 years ago.

scania.com/Images/P09301EN%2 … _50164.pdf

yes but there was plenty of 110s doing the same work. Same as now even in sweden there are more r480s than r620s

It would be interesting to see the fuel consumption figures that you’d end up with if you compared a 110 or an F12 and a 140 all running at 50t gross or a 480 v a 620 running at 60t.I’d bet that it would be the the more powerful options in all cases that came out on top and I think the same would apply if you used the bigger engines,in derated form,at 40t.

When we had the "Samson " with D/D V8 at 290 and I had a 250 ■■■■■■■ in my viewline we often ran together carrying the same loads same weight but the samson tared off about 4 tons heavier and the fuel consumption was 3 to 4 for the samson whereas the ■■■■■■■ was around 5 and that was with a straight 6 ZF box whereas the samson had a 15 speed fuller and was a lot heavier on fuel I recall it used to work out that the samson used about a third more fuel than the ■■■■■■■ powered wagon. We also often swapped wagons half way through a run and that made no difference so it was not down to individual drivers.
cheers Johnnie

You’re concentrating on those zb peak power figures again and forgetting all about the fact that,as is still being proved here,the Brits couldn’t tell the difference between a 9 Litre non turbo bus engine v a naturally aspirated 14 litre truck engine or between peak power outputs compared to a torque curve.

In both those cases you’re actually comparing dumb (naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■■ with dumber (non turbo two stroke 9 Litre bus engine used in a heavy top weight truck).Which is why the Americans,being the clever lot that they are,were busy developing much better versions of both engines in turbocharged form.Which were certainly available during the early-mid 1970’s at a time when the Brits were still ordering and using Gardner powered day cabbed heaps at worst or non turbocharged 7 Litre V6 and 9 Litre V8 Detroit bus engines or naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ engines to run in 32t + trucks at best.

It’s all about relative torque curves not peak power outputs and the engine which can put out the most power,at the lowest rpm,running at equivalent weights will,in most cases,be the most fuel efficient and productive.In this case the comparison would be the difference in torque between a (derated) turbocharged 8V92 Detroit compared to the non turbocharged 6V71 or 8V71 and the Volvo F10/F12 at 32t-38t and Scania 140 v the F12 running at around 50t,and now up to date the Scania 480 v the 620 at 60t.Or even a derated 620 running at 40t.

That is far to technical for me I was only a driver and I was able to tell if a wagon was a good motor by the way it did the job in hand the D/D was very good as you would always get a lot more green shield stamps the down side it would take longer to fill up.
cheers Johnnie

To put it simply in this case if the thing was fitted with a turbocharged 8V92 de rated to around 380 hp instead of a 300 hp non turbocharged 8V71 it probably would have got you a lot less green shield stamps and gone up the hills a lot better without having to thrash it.

[endit]

Carryfast, you appear to have been in the industry ( if it can be called that, these days)a long time, but you really do have your head in the sand.
Have you considered putting it somewhere else which might be more fertile towards more rational thinking?

[dazcapri]

Carryfast:

dazcapri:

Carryfast:

dazcapri:

Carryfast:
how was it that anyone could have been stupid enough to consider that the TM would be more efficient with the 7 or 9 Litre V6 or V8 71 series non turbo Detroit in it without asking to have the 8V92 turbo motor in it instead.I think the same also applies to the use of naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ engines instead of using the available turbocharged ones.

I think on the issue of power requirements it was a simple case of the British operators being a bit slow on the uptake in understanding that more power,where it’s developed at lower engine speeds,actually means more fuel efficiency,and more productivety,not less.The issue of driver comfort was something else.

surely it was Bedford and parent company GM’s fault for fitting them with such a crap(in your opinion) engine the British operators didn’t ask Bedford to design the truck with that engine so the manufacturer must take the blame for all these underpowered TM’s that were sold.

It’s actually a case of put in the thing what you can sell and what the buyers will buy.Which is why,at the same time as Bedford were selling a few underpowered TM’s,ERF and Foden were still selling even more of their even more underpowered wagons.

What I’m saying is that fitting the turbocharged 8V92 in the TM would have made it a ‘better’ truck than fitting it with the smaller capacity,less powerful,non turbocharged options.It’s exactly that issue,concerning the fact,that the British buyers weren’t looking to order ‘better’ trucks,because at the time most of them didn’t even know any better,as to what even constituted a ‘better’ truck,that was the main cause of ‘what went wrong’.

The fact that fitting the Gardner in the narrow day cabbed version of the TM,probably would have resulted in more sales at the time,in the domestic market,than putting the turbocharged 8V92 in the full width sleeper cabbed version,actually helps my case that it was mainly the backward thinking customer base,in the domestic market,that sank the domestic truck manufactruring industry.

However fitting the Gardner in the TM,instead of a naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or non turbocharged 6V71 Detroit,would have been a case of replacing dumb and dumber with the dumbest .So obviously nothing much seems to have changed in the ideas and thinking of many of those here.

the original question was what went wrong your saying it’s all down to the backward thinking of the operators when there’s no one single thing that caused the demise of the Brits. The manufacturers didn’t help by forcing trucks onto operators that they didn’t actually want,Bewick tells a story elsewhere of getting an Atki with a rear axle he didn’t want. Had the TM been fitted with a Gardener you admit yourself more people would have bought it and Bedford may have survived. The manufacturers expecting people to accept “specs” they didn’t want and wait months (sometimes years) for Brit trucks meant operators went to the foreigners and bought their products instead unfortunately not many went back to the Brits and it was the beginning of the end. Would a Gardener engined TM been a better truck possibly not but it WOULD have sold then GM could have introduced the Detroit later when the TM had hopefully proved itself.(F.W.I.W I think the full width sleeper cabbed TM was a smart looking truck)

[zb_anorak]

The TM was indeed a smart looker, especially those “show specials” that they did in the late '70s. They should have started in 1974 with ■■■■■■■ 220/250 in the narrow cab and 350 in the wide cab. They could have offered the 8V92 as an option, all the way up to 435bhp, as it was in the States. That would have given them a flagship model to tempt owner drivers, and cast some prestige over the rest of the range. They didn’t, though.

[wheel_nut]

Endit:
Carryfast, you appear to have been in the industry ( if it can be called that, these days)a long time, but you really do have your head in the sand.
Have you considered putting it somewhere else which might be more fertile towards more rational thinking?

I have often thought that, how about rail testing or as a metallurgist?

[casual_observer]

The definitive answer to WHAT WENT WRONG …

Carryfast , being an industry insider was maybe not alone in his line of thought . Imagine if he & others within the manufacturers were sat there , all moaning & criticising the purchasers of these ever so backward vehicles we were obliged to keep on buying , but instead of using the time productively , instead sat dreaming of distant shores , & drooling over vehicles using the interstates . Is it really such a surprise we lost out , we really were on a hiding to nothing .

But , then if you read back , there may well be a reason for his line of thought

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.

Poor soul ,working under a glass roof , on hot summers days .

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.

Carryfast
SENIOR MEMBER

Posts: 4679
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:45 pm

Unlike most of us who struggle to progress up the ladder , he just moves on when he has had enough of working inside

But , lets look at those dates again . In factory 1976 , give a natural progression of say 3 to 4 years , now '79 / '80 as to when he found out just how good American components could make a truck go . I dare say the dinosaur Atkis he mentions so much were well out of production , but still giving good reliable service . If we were then to add on development time for a new Americanised model , say another 3 to 4 years , well we are now at '83 / '84 , now the clock is ticking down the hours until GM close Bedford down .

[wheel_nut]

Casual Observer:
The definitive answer to WHAT WENT WRONG …

Carryfast , being an industry insider was maybe not alone in his line of thought . Imagine if he & others within the manufacturers were sat there , all moaning & criticising the purchasers of these ever so backward vehicles we were obliged to keep on buying , but instead of using the time productively , instead sat dreaming of distant shores , & drooling over vehicles using the interstates . Is it really such a surprise we lost out , we really were on a hiding to nothing .

But , then if you read back , there may well be a reason for his line of thought

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.

Poor soul ,working under a glass roof , on hot summers days .

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.

Carryfast
SENIOR MEMBER

Posts: 4679
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:45 pm

Unlike most of us who struggle to progress up the ladder , he just moves on when he has had enough of working inside

But , lets look at those dates again . In factory 1976 , give a natural progression of say 3 to 4 years , now '79 / '80 as to when he found out just how good American components could make a truck go . I dare say the dinosaur Atkis he mentions so much were well out of production , but still giving good reliable service . If we were then to add on development time for a new Americanised model , say another 3 to 4 years , well we are now at '83 / '84 , now the clock is ticking down the hours until GM close Bedford down .

Yes, you are right, non of it adds up, he was driving old Atkis and Fodens on a council contract, well he drove a gritter when the sun wasn’t shining through the roof, he spent 30 years driving muscle cars in the 60’s and was the only man ever to be able to drive an a frame drawbar properly. Not bad going to say he was born in the same year as me. He knows all what was wrong in Europe but has never left these shores in a lorry.

I heard he was destined for higher things in the government promoting British goods abroad!

[carryfast]

ramone:
You blame the backward thinking hauliers for speccing low powered Gardners and the like but quite a few V8 mandators went on the road between 68 and 70 and from what i can gather it was those very same backward hauliers that were buying them.The V8 was rated around 247 bhp in non turbo charged guise which was pretty high for 68 and if the real culprits responsible for the demise of British truck manufacturing had have opened the ■■■■■ strings a little more instead of pumping money into gas turbines and headless wonders AEC may have died with its name untarnished but then again if those backward hauliers hadnt have bought the V8 then your argument might have had a crumb of substance to it.As for US manufacturers saving our industry …

You say that ‘quite a few’ 247 hp naturally aspirated V8 Mandators were being put on the road obviously by operators who didn’t have the sense to say to the dealers,why the zb are you putting that boat anchor in that a zb ergo cabbed heap while Scania are already busy getting on with making their 350 turbocharged V8 and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ later on Volvo were all busy with getting on with their turbocharged 300 hp + six cylinder motors while Detroit would be putting the turbocharged 92 series into production shortly.All of which would provide better power at lower engine speeds therefore better productivety and efficiency.The same issue also applies in respect of all those orders for the naturally aspirated Gardner 240 8 cylinder powered wagons.

Or,was it more likely,that the dealers said we’re thinking of going down the route of the latest thinking in the US and Scandinavia by producing much more powerful and more comfortable wagons would you be interested.

The answer came back no zb off you must be dreaming this isn’t the wide open spaces of zb America and Scandinavia and we’re not pulling Scandinavian weights either and more power means more fuel,always,and if our drivers don’t like what they’re driving they know where the zb gate is.

As for the US saving our industry.I think ERF,Foden,and and others,including Leyland,would have gone under a lot sooner,and the debts left behind would have been far greater,if it hadn’t have been for the availability and use of US componentry in a half hearted and belated attempt (to try to) make up for the lost development time that those backward operators had cost them during the early-mid 1970’s.

In my own case I wouldn’t even have had a job to start with because my own employers wouldn’t even have had many,if any,products to sell since around 5 years before I had even started with them in 1975.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Casual Observer:
The definitive answer to WHAT WENT WRONG …

Carryfast , being an industry insider was maybe not alone in his line of thought . Imagine if he & others within the manufacturers were sat there , all moaning & criticising the purchasers of these ever so backward vehicles we were obliged to keep on buying , but instead of using the time productively , instead sat dreaming of distant shores , & drooling over vehicles using the interstates . Is it really such a surprise we lost out , we really were on a hiding to nothing .

But , then if you read back , there may well be a reason for his line of thought

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.

Poor soul ,working under a glass roof , on hot summers days .

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.

Carryfast
SENIOR MEMBER

Posts: 4679
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:45 pm

Unlike most of us who struggle to progress up the ladder , he just moves on when he has had enough of working inside

But , lets look at those dates again . In factory 1976 , give a natural progression of say 3 to 4 years , now '79 / '80 as to when he found out just how good American components could make a truck go . I dare say the dinosaur Atkis he mentions so much were well out of production , but still giving good reliable service . If we were then to add on development time for a new Americanised model , say another 3 to 4 years , well we are now at '83 / '84 , now the clock is ticking down the hours until GM close Bedford down .

Yes, you are right, non of it adds up, he was driving old Atkis and Fodens on a council contract, well he drove a gritter when the sun wasn’t shining through the roof, he spent 30 years driving muscle cars in the 60’s and was the only man ever to be able to drive an a frame drawbar properly. Not bad going to say he was born in the same year as me. He knows all what was wrong in Europe but has never left these shores in a lorry.

I heard he was destined for higher things in the government promoting British goods abroad!

Something seems to have got lost in the understanding of exactly the dates and all the reasoning behind how I found myself doing what I did and those reading and (trying to) understand it or not wanting to understand it.

The job I was doing in the factory and subsequently after that certainly was ‘progression’ from my point of view and I probably wasn’t alone in thinking zb working inside in a factory regardless of wether it was a hot summer or not and certainly if you’re cut out to be a driver not a factory worker.

The actual dates seem to blow your supposed timeline apart.Those dinosaur Atkis etc were certainly still being ordered when I started with the firm in 1975 and still in widespread use when I got made redundant in 1980.The TM didn’t need to wait until the early 1980s to be developed because everything required was already there from the mid 1970’s on.Except,of course the backward British customers .I had a reasonable idea of just how good those American components could make a truck go from when I actually started having,obviously unlike most British operators at the time,been able to understand torque,in addition to,power output figures,and the difference that makes to how a truck will go.However that’s not the same thing as confirming it by driving the things.

As for muscle cars as wheelnut says he grew up as I did through the 1970’s it seems surprising how it was that he never seems to remember that those times were dominated by people of our age,who were interested in cars,spending a lot of that time around 1960’s/early 1970’s car designs and the modifications which could easily be done to the US parent GM and Ford British models using the American egine and driveline components,used in their domestic models,based on the knowledge of how good American import muscle cars of the time could actually go,assuming that they didn’t go for the cheaper to buy options of the domestic 6,8 and 12 cylinder Jaguar/Rover/Triumph offerings which,contrary to all the typical stereotypical bs,weren’t half bad either.

But why the zb would I want to promote ‘British trucks abroad’ when as I’ve already said they were mostly zb anyway because of the built in obsolesence caused by the backward demands of the customer base in their domestic market.

[parkroyal2100]

Carryfast:

Carryfast:
Probably based on the results of what happens when you give the average modern day British boy racer a zb overpowered,front wheel drive,Japanese ricer heap that’s made out of tin foil, which they then put off the road the first time that they take it out on the road

Do try to keep up with the times dear boy. Japanese designed and built FWD cars these days are pretty much a by-word for well-designed, well-built, reliable, comfortable and (dare I say it) desirable cars that handle properly and go well. In some cases they rate better than the European cars they compete with. Go find me a single current US designed and built car that competes on that level.

So you’re saying that you’d prefer a Jap fwd four cylinder boy racer motor to a supercharged Caddy CTSV,a Jag XFR or an M5 and you’re saying that you can’t take me seriously.

Oh so it’s preferences now is it? Whatever it was you did in the truck industry you missed your true vocation, you shift goalposts so fast you should have been a groundsman.

[carryfast]

ParkRoyal2100:

Carryfast:

Carryfast:
Probably based on the results of what happens when you give the average modern day British boy racer a zb overpowered,front wheel drive,Japanese ricer heap that’s made out of tin foil, which they then put off the road the first time that they take it out on the road

Do try to keep up with the times dear boy. Japanese designed and built FWD cars these days are pretty much a by-word for well-designed, well-built, reliable, comfortable and (dare I say it) desirable cars that handle properly and go well. In some cases they rate better than the European cars they compete with. Go find me a single current US designed and built car that competes on that level.

So you’re saying that you’d prefer a Jap fwd four cylinder boy racer motor to a supercharged Caddy CTSV,a Jag XFR or an M5 and you’re saying that you can’t take me seriously.

Oh so it’s preferences now is it? Whatever it was you did in the truck industry you missed your true vocation, you shift goalposts so fast you should have been a groundsman.

You didn’t answer the question.If fwd Jap ricer heaps are so good why the zb would anyone pay loads ‘a’ money for the Caddy,Jag,or the BMW .

[kr79]

That skyline whooped the arse of the jag xkr on top gear last year. My mates got a xkr he goes mad when we take the ■■■■ down the pub saying it ain’t as fast as a Datsun.
Must admit im with carryfast here other than a skyline or scooby or a land cruiser I wouldn’t fancy a Japanese motor.
Anyway back to something sort of on the original point the 250 ■■■■■■■ beat the 290 Detroit on fuel so you say get a bigger Detroit and it will be better on fuel. So say put a 400 Detroit against the 400 ■■■■■■■■ I would guess the ■■■■■■■ would be better on juice and remember the big ■■■■■■■ never had a reputation for been frugal.

[wheel_nut]

kr79:
That skyline whooped the arse of the jag xkr on top gear last year. My mates got a xkr he goes mad when we take the ■■■■ down the pub saying it ain’t as fast as a Datsun.
Must admit im with carryfast here other than a skyline or scooby or a land cruiser I wouldn’t fancy a Japanese motor.
Anyway back to something sort of on the original point the 250 ■■■■■■■ beat the 290 Detroit on fuel so you say get a bigger Detroit and it will be better on fuel. So say put a 400 Detroit against the 400 ■■■■■■■■ I would guess the ■■■■■■■ would be better on juice and remember the big ■■■■■■■ never had a reputation for been frugal.

A rare 1970 motor that would be the pride of the fleet and a proper drivers dream lorry
flic.kr/p/5ePJmX

My preferred choice of Jap would be the Mitsubishi EVO X

Unfortunately Subaru have become like the XR3i arse, everyone has one

[carryfast]

kr79:
That skyline whooped the arse of the jag xkr on top gear last year. My mates got a xkr he goes mad when we take the ■■■■ down the pub saying it ain’t as fast as a Datsun.
Must admit im with carryfast here other than a skyline or scooby or a land cruiser I wouldn’t fancy a Japanese motor.
Anyway back to something sort of on the original point the 250 ■■■■■■■ beat the 290 Detroit on fuel so you say get a bigger Detroit and it will be better on fuel. So say put a 400 Detroit against the 400 ■■■■■■■■ I would guess the ■■■■■■■ would be better on juice and remember the big ■■■■■■■ never had a reputation for been frugal.

All of the fuel consumption figures need to be looked at by the standards of the day.If you’d have tested the ■■■■■■■ and Detroit powered TM 4400,Scania V8 and an F 12,at equivalent weights,over the same route,there probably wouldn’t have been a big difference in fuel consumption between any of them.However from Bedford’s point of view it would have made no sense to use a bought in ■■■■■■■ when they could have used the in house Detroit in just the same way that a 380+ six cylinder ■■■■■■■ would probably have been (slightly) better on fuel than the Scania V8 but Scania weren’t in the business of buying in componentry when they could build their own thereby also gaining development experience and revenue for further development.

In addition to which,as history shows,Detroit used the money made from sales of it’s two stroke products to then develop it’s later 6 cylinder 4 stroke designs which obviously would have got into later versions of the TM later.However the relevant bit is that any of those options were far more efficient and productive and comfortable than ordering the narrow day cabbed 7 Litre V6 non turbo Detroit in the TM or Gardner powered Atkis etc etc or putting the TL 12 in the T 45 or other engine options with similar outputs.Which just leaves the DAF 2800.Which from memory and,at least in my experience,was more fuel efficient than the 2500 but no surprise which ones most British operators went for when they had the choice when it mattered to the British industry to be developing and building more powerful more comfortable wagons.

As for the Jag.

youtube.com/watch?v=CZURNR8Fy6o

youtube.com/watch?v=VhpwhXo5hIM

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

kr79:
That skyline whooped the arse of the jag xkr on top gear last year. My mates got a xkr he goes mad when we take the ■■■■ down the pub saying it ain’t as fast as a Datsun.
Must admit im with carryfast here other than a skyline or scooby or a land cruiser I wouldn’t fancy a Japanese motor.
Anyway back to something sort of on the original point the 250 ■■■■■■■ beat the 290 Detroit on fuel so you say get a bigger Detroit and it will be better on fuel. So say put a 400 Detroit against the 400 ■■■■■■■■ I would guess the ■■■■■■■ would be better on juice and remember the big ■■■■■■■ never had a reputation for been frugal.

A rare 1970 motor that would be the pride of the fleet and a proper drivers dream lorry
flic.kr/p/5ePJmX

[kr79]

Still got beat by a datsun