newmercman:
(Snip) Did Guy ever offer an in house engine in a heavy truck?
Guy used AEC and Leyland engine’s in the 16 tonners and the 26 ton unit but I don’t believe they had any fitted in their max weight models.
Personally I think that using well proven bought in engines is the better way to go, let somebody else sort all the issues out at their expense. Most of the ‘quality trucks’ like Foden/Atkinson/ERF did that and they sold well enough. The drawback is when supply dries up due to demand (Gardner) or industrial action (Gardner again!) which can result in late delivery of order’s or having to supply a different engine to the one specced which is how Tilcon ended up with Rolls Eagle’s (which they re-ordered in large amounts) and ■■■■■■■ which generally they didn’t!
kr79:
all though the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was a reliable engine it was never seen as very good on fuel
Firstly it takes more or less the same amount of fuel to produce the equivalent amount of hp regardless of whether it’s a 14 litre or a 7 litre.The only variables in that case are specific torque outputs and engine speeds.The lower the BMEP and/or higher the engine speed the less fuel efficient the thing will be.There’s also a compromise between reliability and BMEP/specific torque in that you can push an engine too far.Just like in the case of engine speed.On that note the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was/is just about one of the best ever compromises ever produced in meeting all of those parameters.It’s also why most,if not all,of the main players in the heavy truck engine scene are producing relatively similar capacity 12 litre + low engine speed high BMEP designs not sub 12 litre ones.
newmercman:
(Snip) Did Guy ever offer an in house engine in a heavy truck?
Guy used AEC and Leyland engine’s in the 16 tonners and the 26 ton unit but I don’t believe they had any fitted in their max weight models.
Personally I think that using well proven bought in engines is the better way to go, let somebody else sort all the issues out at their expense. Most of the ‘quality trucks’ like Foden/Atkinson/ERF did that and they sold well enough. The drawback is when supply dries up due to demand (Gardner) or industrial action (Gardner again!) which can result in late delivery of order’s or having to supply a different engine to the one specced which is how Tilcon ended up with Rolls Eagle’s (which they re-ordered in large amounts) and ■■■■■■■ which generally they didn’t!
Pete.
The argument between assembly v in house ( vertically integrated ) is an essential part of the discussion as to Leyland’s fate.Personally I agree that the assembly route provides much more flexibility in being able to meet market demands.
However we’ve got the facts and history against us in which all the signs are that in house ( vertical integration ) was/is the only way to survive.In which case the AEC V8 and 760/TL12,and Leyland 500 engines were a major factor in the collapse of the truck divison.
I stand corrected the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was a good engine on fuel.
I tell my mate he was wrong to ditch his 14 litre erf which he has replaced with a v8 scania and a iveco stralis and the 560 stralis impressive fuel figures are in his mind not his wallet.
newmercman:
Did Guy ever offer an in house engine in a heavy truck? Scammell were big Gardner users and used the Leyland 0.600, but their affiliation with RR came about in part due to the Crusader and I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that there was some kind of government intervention in that which bailed out RR. It was a strange decision to go to a loose engine when there were group engines that would’ve worked out, the extra funds from more production would’ve no doubt helped in the development of and the eventual replacement of the AV760/TL12 platform.
I’d guess that Scammell’s ‘affiliation’ with Rolls ( and Detroit or ■■■■■■■ ) was mostly because the in house alternatives in the form of the AEC V8 and the 760,let alone the 500,just weren’t good enough.Which repeated itself later in the case of the T45.The conclusion being an ‘in house’ manufacturer without a credible in house engine.On that note it’s also an interesting point that,unsurprisingly,Scammell doesn’t seem to have put the ■■■■■■■ V8 in the Crusader ?, unlike some of the Thorneycroft specialist designs it inherited.
kr79:
I stand corrected the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was a good engine on fuel.
I tell my mate he was wrong to ditch his 14 litre erf which he has replaced with a v8 scania and a iveco stralis and the 560 stralis impressive fuel figures are in his mind not his wallet.
To be fair there were lots of different specs of ■■■■■■■ 14 litre.The best of those not being known for being fuel guzzlers relative to their output.While it’s obvious that technology has moved on since even the N14 let alone anything before that.In which case are you comparing like with like Scania V8 v ■■■■■■■ in terms of time scale or at least best case outputs ?.Which then leaves the question of lifetime service/maintenance costs of Scania or Stralis v N14.
I am just chuckling to myself imagining a young Carryfast (winkle pickers and a ■■■■■, Brylcream and drainpipes, or flower-power shirt and flares?) and all his mates back in the day souping up their Minis, Anglias, Imps, Cortinas and Escorts. His mates are busy bolting on Weslake or Lotus heads and manifolds, Weber carburettors and Piper cams, meanwhile dear CF is busy looking for a longer throw crank.
kr79:
I stand corrected the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was a good engine on fuel.
I tell my mate he was wrong to ditch his 14 litre erf which he has replaced with a v8 scania and a iveco stralis and the 560 stralis impressive fuel figures are in his mind not his wallet.
To be fair there were lots of different specs of ■■■■■■■ 14 litre.The best of those not being known for being fuel guzzlers relative to their output.While it’s obvious that technology has moved on since even the N14 let alone anything before that.In which case are you comparing like with like Scania V8 v ■■■■■■■ in terms of time scale or at least best case outputs ?.Which then leaves the question of lifetime service/maintenance costs of Scania or Stralis v N14.
525 ■■■■■■■ on 2001 reg 560 scania and Iveco on 07 reg
Scammell’s engine usage from its emergence as a heavy lorry builder in the late 1920s was firstly its own petrol engine, which was quickly superceded by bought-in Gardner LW (usually a 6LW), then from the post-WW2 era, Gardner or Meadows. From the early 1950s and its acquisition by Leyland Motors the Leyland 0.600 / O.680 became an option with ■■■■■■■ power available in the heavy haulage tractors. Also the Rolls Royce CF6. Throughout all this 30 years period Scammell’s heavy lorry output was measured in 100s annually; in reality it was a specilaised and quirky manufacturer, unlike any other British commercial vehicle company in the products it sold. Leyland brought it into more mainstream products from the 1960s with the Michelotti cabbed ranges, firstly powered by either Leyland or Gardner engines, then Rolls Royce and ■■■■■■■■ As discussed previously the Crusader was a “committee designed” product primarily for BRS. Whilst Scammell lorries are quite rightly highly regarded it could never ever hope to produce the volumes annually that any of Leyland, AEC, Albion and Guy turned out simply because of the physical building restraints at Tolpits Lane, Watford. Just for arguments sake, if it had been decided to badge all the T45 range as Scammell then the production would still have had to be spread around other Leyland Group assembly facilities.
newmercman:
Did Guy ever offer an in house engine in a heavy truck? Scammell were big Gardner users and used the Leyland 0.600, but their affiliation with RR came about in part due to the Crusader and I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that there was some kind of government intervention in that which bailed out RR. It was a strange decision to go to a loose engine when there were group engines that would’ve worked out, the extra funds from more production would’ve no doubt helped in the development of and the eventual replacement of the AV760/TL12 platform.
I’d guess that Scammell’s ‘affiliation’ with Rolls ( and Detroit or ■■■■■■■ ) was mostly because the in house alternatives in the form of the AEC V8 and the 760,let alone the 500,just weren’t good enough.Which repeated itself later in the case of the T45.The conclusion being an ‘in house’ manufacturer without a credible in house engine.On that note it’s also an interesting point that,unsurprisingly,Scammell doesn’t seem to have put the ■■■■■■■ V8 in the Crusader ?, unlike some of the Thorneycroft specialist designs it inherited.
IE just natural selection in action.
scammell trunker was popular with fuel company’s and I believe the Eagle was popular with them possibly a light engine? So maybe a tie in there along with the Crusader been designed in conjunction with brs.
The routeman 3 came with the leyland 680 then the tl11 as standard with the Eagle as an option.
In 1984 leyland also built 200 constructors with gardner engines for hall aggregates/rmc who at the time were probaly the biggest buyers of eight wheel tippers in the UK
cav551:
I am just chuckling to myself imagining a young Carryfast (winkle pickers and a ■■■■■, Brylcream and drainpipes, or flower-power shirt and flares?) and all his mates back in the day souping up their Minis, Anglias, Imps, Cortinas and Escorts. His mates are busy bolting on Weslake or Lotus heads and manifolds, Weber carburettors and Piper cams, meanwhile dear CF is busy looking for a longer throw crank.
Sorry, not meaning to be unkind.
Ironically you’re spot on except for the clothes and hair.While they were mostly all going for the short stroke old Fords like Mk 2 Zodiacs ( at least until they had enough cash to think about putting a big V8 in them ) I went for the Triumph 2.5 which as we know was just a stroked 2000 motor.Then the BMW 3.0 litre which was a longer stroke version of the BMW 6 than the 2500.Then finally threw a 6.0 litre V12 into an XJ12 instead of putting a stroked 4 1/2 litre Rover V8 in the Triumph.Which I’ve still got and which you’ve guessed it is just a stroked version of the 5.3.Although sometimes I wish that I’d put a 302,or even better a 351 V8 into the Granada I ran for a while instead,both being progressively stroked versions of the 289.Bearing in mind the ohc Jag motor is a zb to work on by comparison.
Carryfast:
To be fair there were lots of different specs of ■■■■■■■ 14 litre.The best of those not being known for being fuel guzzlers relative to their output.While it’s obvious that technology has moved on since even the N14 let alone anything before that.In which case are you comparing like with like Scania V8 v ■■■■■■■ in terms of time scale or at least best case outputs ?.Which then leaves the question of lifetime service/maintenance costs of Scania or Stralis v N14.
525 ■■■■■■■ on 2001 reg 560 scania and Iveco on 07 reg
Which not surprisingly seems like a later generation technology apples comparison with earlier generation technology oranges.When the relevant comparison would be the previous generation 14.2 litre Scania.No surprise that part of that upgrade of the Scania V8 meant increasing its stroke by a considerable degree.In which case no surprise the newer tech 6 inch + stroke 15.6 litre V8 beats older tech 6 inch stroke 6 cylinder ■■■■■■■ N14 in the torque and therefore fuel efficiency race.Which seems to support my argument regards AEC/Leyland’s engine designs more than yours.
Yes the scania v8 is a more modern design and is a bit better on fuel but it’s the 13 litre iveco 560 that ■■■■■■ over both in fuel economy although not in the sound stakes.
Let’s face it after 25 years the TL12 come to the end of its life maybe a few more years and bhp could of been had out of it who knows but it can hardly be called a failed design or the reason leyland trucks didn’t survive.
There’s people here that drove owned and operated them who are not saying there junk and more criticism has been thrown at the choice of spicer gearbox over a fuller in early models and the crap albion axles that were replaced by rock Wells later on.
Same as everyone I’ve known to operate 14 litre ■■■■■■■ trucks and from truck in service articles never praised any 14 litre be it small cam big cam etc to be particularly frugal on fuel but the reliability and performance and cost of rebuilds in days of cheaper fuel and better rates and for some running on red made it cheaper still could be lived with but tge way for most general hauliers now every .1 of a gallon more does make a difference.
As for getting in to crank strokes and bemp your beyond me I drive a lorry not design them and if I knew such stuff I wouldn’t be driving one.
Sadly running maintaining and real life experience of stuff is different to reading text books.
kr79:
Yes the scania v8 is a more modern design and is a bit better on fuel but it’s the 13 litre iveco 560 that ■■■■■■ over both in fuel economy although not in the sound stakes.
Let’s face it after 25 years the TL12 come to the end of its life maybe a few more years and bhp could of been had out of it who knows but it can hardly be called a failed design or the reason leyland trucks didn’t survive.
There’s people here that drove owned and operated them who are not saying there junk and more criticism has been thrown at the choice of spicer gearbox over a fuller in early models and the crap albion axles that were replaced by rock Wells later on.
Same as everyone I’ve known to operate 14 litre ■■■■■■■ trucks and from truck in service articles never praised any 14 litre be it small cam big cam etc to be particularly frugal on fuel but the reliability and performance and cost of rebuilds in days of cheaper fuel and better rates and for some running on red made it cheaper still could be lived with but tge way for most general hauliers now every .1 of a gallon more does make a difference.
As for getting in to crank strokes and bemp your beyond me I drive a lorry not design them and if I knew such stuff I wouldn’t be driving one.
Sadly running maintaining and real life experience of stuff is different to reading text books.
That IVECO motor is something else in terms of BMEP.It must have a block/pistons/con rods etc etc made out of some form of alien technology to stand up to those types of pressures and stresses.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the relative superiority of the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in terms of its combination of fuel efficiency and output and reliability in the day.
As for the relationship between stroke measurement and BMEP and resulting stress figures,in determining the ultimate efficiency and reliability of an engine.That’s simple to understand and no different today than it was when the 760 and Rolls Eagle were designed.In all cases BMEP is the relevant yardstick not BHP.
On that note I wouldn’t want to be standing anywhere near that IVECO motor running at max torque ‘if’ they’d have given it a 142 mm stroke measurement even with the Romulan,or is it Vulcan,components in it.
Meanwhile just to prove that more stroke measurement is better.
kr79:
I stand corrected the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was a good engine on fuel.
I tell my mate he was wrong to ditch his 14 litre erf which he has replaced with a v8 scania and a iveco stralis and the 560 stralis impressive fuel figures are in his mind not his wallet.
To be fair there were lots of different specs of ■■■■■■■ 14 litre.The best of those not being known for being fuel guzzlers relative to their output.While it’s obvious that technology has moved on since even the N14 let alone anything before that.In which case are you comparing like with like Scania V8 v ■■■■■■■ in terms of time scale or at least best case outputs ?.Which then leaves the question of lifetime service/maintenance costs of Scania or Stralis v N14.
I think Bewick mentioned the ■■■■■■■ he operated were heavy on juice … but what would he know he only paid for the stuff
ramone:
I think Bewick mentioned the ■■■■■■■ he operated were heavy on juice … but what would he know he only paid for the stuff
Absolutely more than 40 year production life.Reputedly holding no records for durability in service and only a meagre 1,800 lb/ft + of torque potential.Every one bought by people who couldn’t care less about fuel costs.
It’s ironic that around 30 years ago you could buy a lorry of different makes fitted with different proprietary engines
Yet today you can’t have a proprietary engine of your choice fitted as today’s lorry manufacturers only fit their own engines especially at the top weight end
Also today the choice of lorries is limited to around 6 manufacturers
Is that a good thing ?
I don’t think there’s much to choose from nowadays
ramone:
I think Bewick mentioned the ■■■■■■■ he operated were heavy on juice … but what would he know he only paid for the stuff
Absolutely more than 40 year production life.Reputedly holding no records for durability in service and only a meagre 1,800 lb/ft + of torque potential.Every one bought by people who couldn’t care less about fuel costs.
I don’t think many would say the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ wasn’t a decent engine.
The big power from a small engine in the iveco is the cursor range of engines.
I know they have a rather technical turbo charger system but what else I have no idea.
I know a few people who have run them who all rate them as a decent value for money truck however many drivers seem to knock them Prehaps a bit like the roadtrain back in the day
ramone:
I think Bewick mentioned the ■■■■■■■ he operated were heavy on juice … but what would he know he only paid for the stuff
Absolutely more than 40 year production life.Reputedly holding no records for durability in service and only a meagre 1,800 lb/ft + of torque potential.Every one bought by people who couldn’t care less about fuel costs.
I don’t think many would say the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ wasn’t a decent engine.
The big power from a small engine in the iveco is the cursor range of engines.
I know they have a rather technical turbo charger system but what else I have no idea.
I know a few people who have run them who all rate them as a decent value for money truck however many drivers seem to knock them Prehaps a bit like the roadtrain back in the day
We had some Turbotec and Turbostars in `89/90 mostly 360s and they could really pull infact they were excellent but they just fell apart cab wise and they were very cramped the side windows were very small and the big mirrors on the Turbostars hindered the view the cab space was very tight compared with the 340 and 365 Renaults we had , but the V8 480 Turbostar we had was something else
