Did they fail or did they just morph into another brand, bit like ERF to Man, Scania now part of VW, Seddon joined Atkinson, SA into Iveco & so on & on…
I know im over my head in this thread BUT coming from D series ,Clydesdales,reivers,atki 4 and 6 wheelers on tippers and getting a new T45 constructor wae 9 sd fuller was like getting a wage rise!! (was heavier though) also after driving a foden s80? ,daf 2500.,scania 110 artics getting to drive a T45 was a comfortable motor,good lock etc only thing that pd me off was why in gods name a bloody spicer box!! just a young driver at the times thoughts jimmy/
kr79:
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
To be fair that would be an understatement.The Cursor only seems to win out on its ‘spread’ of torque rather than its peak v the ■■■■■■■■
However the N14 actually has a very slightly higher peak specific torque 
in that regard but across a slightly narrower band.Hence the Cursor’s higher power output.The obvious question then being are we comparing an automated transmission in the case of the IVECO ( and probably Scania ) with a manual in the case of the ■■■■■■■ ?.In which case the ■■■■■■■■ fuel consumption is obviously going to be more driver discipline dependent ?.Having said that around 1,700 lb/ft between 1,000-1,700 rpm is amazing from just under 13 litres but maybe not unexpected from a modern design.
Whereas the N14 seems to me to be the winner on both counts in terms of its specific torque output. Which then just needs the right driver discipline to compensate for its relatively narrower band. 
The point being that in all cases we’re dealing with at least around that 6 inch stroke benchmark.Which is as important now as it was in 1965 and ‘73.Or for that matter the mid 1950’s as ■■■■■■■■ engineers obviously saw it and decided.
Scania is a manual but the guy is an owner driver so he drives it sensibly as he pays for fuel.
Exactly. No matter how good the engine, the man with his right foot on the accelerator determines how it performs and what amount of fuel it uses. Always has done, always will do despite the electronic gizmos on the modern-day engine. With one exception to this, the Gardner was virtually driver proof. My old mentor used to say " a Gardner will always defeat the driver who tries to abuse it, the driver will never win". Even now we have two 6-months old DAF 105s, identical in every detail, the same regular drivers on them since day one, the same kind of work and trailers every day. Yet one driver is always 0.5 mpg better than the other on fuel every week without fail.
kr79:
Scania is a manual but the guy is an owner driver so he drives it sensibly as he pays for fuel.
It’s an interesting comparison that seems to suggest that the Scania V8 provides better fuel efficiency from an engine with a bit less specific torque.Which can probably be put down to better later fuelling technology over the older tech N14.
While the Cursor seems to follow the link between fuel efficiency and specific torque output given the equivalent modern fuelling tech.Which is probably the fairer comparison.
While the ■■■■■■■ should only really be compared by the standards of the day with its own contemporary opposition.Whether that’s the big cam in the T45 or the N14’s up to 2000.
Geoffrey a 5min ride in a 560 Stralis would have you reaching for the Kleenex!
I owned four of the 540 versions and they were very powerful, but had to be driven to get the best out of them, they do their best work higher up the rpm range than a traditional 500+hp lorry, split a gear at the bottom of a hill and they would blast up on the limiter, or if you fancied ■■■■■■■ off a mate in a 580 Scania, drop a full gear going up the Medway hill on the M2 and fly past him half way up and be in Sheerness 15minutes before him, he’ll come up with plenty of excuses, but deep down he’ll know he spent an extra 30grand for leather seats and a louder exhaust!
Anyway…
I’ve had an idea to breathe some new life into this thread as it has got a bit carryfast (repetitive) how about we discuss what we would’ve done if we held the reins at Leyland at the time of the T45 launch?
Here’s my plan…
First I would’ve disolved the group, Austin - Morris, MG, Rover, Triumph and Jaguar would’ve been seperated and Austin - Morris and MG sold off to the highest bidder. Triumph would’ve made sports cars, Rover and Jaguar would carry on doing what they were doing and unhindered by the abortions coming out of Cowley and Longbridge they could concentrate on their premium products.
I would’ve abandoned the Sherpa, the Transit was too formidable to take on and with Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen gaining momentum it had too small a potential market share to warrant the investment needed to bring the range up to scratch, so it would’ve gone.
I would’ve started the Roadrunner with the ■■■■■■■ B series right from the launch, the rest of the middleweight range would also have been ■■■■■■■ powered. For the heavy rigids I would’ve gone with ■■■■■■■ for the 16tonners and stuck with the Leyland engines for the heavier stuff until the L10 ■■■■■■■ was launched. For the eight wheelers and artic I would’ve gone with Rolls Royce engines as well as the ■■■■■■■ option and Fuller gearboxes.
I would’ve gone into a partnership with ■■■■■■■ to use existing engine plants to build licensed engines, to lower costs, keep the workforce and unions happy and keep the products away from the competition. For the Rolls Royce engines I would’ve used the money from the sale of Austin -Morris and MG to buy the company instead of letting it go to Perkins.
With the amount of money the government had thrown at BL, I’m pretty sure that it would’ve all been made to happen, Maggie was no fan of the unions, so I’m pretty sure she would’ve signed off on the deal to get rid of the Midlands operations and it’s militant workforce and the rest of it would be a pretty good deal too, Rolls Royce was a bit of a thorn in her side and she would’ve welcomed the investment by ■■■■■■■■
Good points there Mark but I’m sure Carryfast will put you right 
P.S, 100% agree with your idea about the B series in the Roadrunner, what was the point of putting that 698 in a new model? it was crap in the Terriers etc!
pete smith:
Good points there Mark but I’m sure Carryfast will put you right
P.S, 100% agree with your idea about the B series in the Roadrunner, what was the point of putting that 698 in a new model? it was crap in the Terriers etc!
Oh you just know he will, I’m sure the B series ■■■■■■■ in the Roadrunner will be replaced by a quad turbo V12 Detroit and it’ll be renamed the Carlos Fandango [emoji3]
I’m disappointed, the green screamers just aren’t loud enough, the Paxman Valenta would have been so much better, that is if you could fit in the cab beside it.
newmercman:
pete smith:
Good points there Mark but I’m sure Carryfast will put you right
P.S, 100% agree with your idea about the B series in the Roadrunner, what was the point of putting that 698 in a new model? it was crap in the Terriers etc!Oh you just know he will, I’m sure the B series ■■■■■■■ in the Roadrunner will be replaced by a quad turbo V12 Detroit and it’ll be renamed the Carlos Fandango [emoji3]
The jag 12 cylinder twr spec would be the ideal choice for the road runner for geoffrey
We would have to have used a Gardner engine somewhere in the range, after all they had 6 inch cylinder stroke dimensions. as we all know the ideal stroke length. (Hugh Gardner decided that in 1931 with the LW series, and it never altered in any of their automotive engines)
gingerfold:
We would have to have used a Gardner engine somewhere in the range, after all they had 6 inch cylinder stroke dimensions. as we all know the ideal stroke length. (Hugh Gardner decided that in 1931 with the LW series, and it never altered in any of their automotive engines)
Please forgive my lacking a practical education but, if they had exactly the right stroke, how come they were “boat anchors”?
newmercman:
Geoffrey a 5min ride in a 560 Stralis would have you reaching for the Kleenex!I owned four of the 540 versions and they were very powerful, but had to be driven to get the best out of them, they do their best work higher up the rpm range than a traditional 500+hp lorry, split a gear at the bottom of a hill and they would blast up on the limiter, or if you fancied ■■■■■■■ off a mate in a 580 Scania, drop a full gear going up the Medway hill on the M2 and fly past him half way up and be in Sheerness 15minutes before him, he’ll come up with plenty of excuses, but deep down he’ll know he spent an extra 30grand for leather seats and a louder exhaust!
Anyway…
I’ve had an idea to breathe some new life into this thread as it has got a bit carryfast (repetitive) how about we discuss what we would’ve done if we held the reins at Leyland at the time of the T45 launch?
Here’s my plan…
First I would’ve disolved the group, Austin - Morris, MG, Rover, Triumph and Jaguar would’ve been seperated and Austin - Morris and MG sold off to the highest bidder. Triumph would’ve made sports cars, Rover and Jaguar would carry on doing what they were doing and unhindered by the abortions coming out of Cowley and Longbridge they could concentrate on their premium products.
I would’ve abandoned the Sherpa, the Transit was too formidable to take on and with Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen gaining momentum it had too small a potential market share to warrant the investment needed to bring the range up to scratch, so it would’ve gone.
I would’ve started the Roadrunner with the ■■■■■■■ B series right from the launch, the rest of the middleweight range would also have been ■■■■■■■ powered. For the heavy rigids I would’ve gone with ■■■■■■■ for the 16tonners and stuck with the Leyland engines for the heavier stuff until the L10 ■■■■■■■ was launched. For the eight wheelers and artic I would’ve gone with Rolls Royce engines as well as the ■■■■■■■ option and Fuller gearboxes.
I would’ve gone into a partnership with ■■■■■■■ to use existing engine plants to build licensed engines, to lower costs, keep the workforce and unions happy and keep the products away from the competition. For the Rolls Royce engines I would’ve used the money from the sale of Austin -Morris and MG to buy the company instead of letting it go to Perkins.
With the amount of money the government had thrown at BL, I’m pretty sure that it would’ve all been made to happen, Maggie was no fan of the unions, so I’m pretty sure she would’ve signed off on the deal to get rid of the Midlands operations and it’s militant workforce and the rest of it would be a pretty good deal too, Rolls Royce was a bit of a thorn in her side and she would’ve welcomed the investment by ■■■■■■■■
With 1,700 lb/ft from 1,000-1,700 rpm that Cursor motor seems to have loads of power everywhere.Although its got to be the full house twin turbo Cursor 16 for me. 
While your plan is more or less what I’ve been saying except as in house manufacturer we don’t have the luxury of messing about with outsourced engine suppliers.So we either keep our best brains in the form of those pished off AEC engineers who went to Rolls and we make a ■■■■■■■ ( and F12 ) killer for ourselves,or we sink.Meanwhile don’t underestimate the contribution of Triumph’s big saloons to the Group.With plenty of life left in the old 2000/2.5 with the Rover V8 and the new 6 cylinder engine range to be put in it and cancel the retrograde ugly,live rear axle SD1.
On that note you’re not going to get enough money to buy Rolls,from the sale of BMC for what anyone will be prepared to pay for it. 
[zb]
anorak:gingerfold:
We would have to have used a Gardner engine somewhere in the range, after all they had 6 inch cylinder stroke dimensions. as we all know the ideal stroke length. (Hugh Gardner decided that in 1931 with the LW series, and it never altered in any of their automotive engines)Please forgive my lacking a practical education but, if they had exactly the right stroke, how come they were “boat anchors”?
They had the right stroke it’s just that they didn’t have the required cylinder pressures to put with it and to make it work.
kr79:
The jag 12 cylinder twr spec would be the ideal choice for the road runner for geoffrey
No I’m working on a pushrod conversion for that to make the thing easier to work on in my car.
[zb]
anorak:
Please forgive my lacking a practical education but, if they had exactly the right stroke, how come they were “boat anchors”?
Being low revving, around 1850-1950 rpm max and having a longish stroke, Gardner’s gained by having good pulling power combined with excellent fuel economy. At around the 1100 rpm mark they would slog on forever on hills, however drivers wanted them for speed as well! 
We had Gardner engined eight leggers that would easily do 60 mph+ so they were not all that slow. I had a Rolls 265 Li in a Foden and that only revved at 1900 rpm but of course it had a ‘snail’ bolted onto the exhaust which made all the difference on hill’s!
I took a newish Foden with a Gardner 201 engine and Fuller gearbox (not as good as Fodens own box with that engine though) back to Patricroft as the driver complained that it was sluggish. Gardner’s test driver tried it loaded up the M63 and across the M62 and said that it went very well, however he also said that if our company had wanted a lorry that romped up hills and kept up with ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered trucks then it was a simple case of the TM ordering the wrong engine in the first place but don’t expect to get around 9 mpg out of it!
RMC had Gardner’s fitted in Constructors locally but they were not a large order.
Pete.
windrush:
[zb]
anorak:
Please forgive my lacking a practical education but, if they had exactly the right stroke, how come they were “boat anchors”?Being low revving, around 1850-1950 rpm max and having a longish stroke, Gardner’s gained by having good pulling power combined with excellent fuel economy. At around the 1100 rpm mark they would slog on forever on hills, however drivers wanted them for speed as well!
I took a newish Foden with a Gardner 201 engine and Fuller gearbox (not as good as Fodens own box with that engine though) back to Patricroft as the driver complained that it was sluggish. Gardner’s test driver tried it loaded up the M63 and across the M62 and said that it went very well, however he also said that if our company had wanted a lorry that romped up hills and kept up with ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered trucks then it was a simple case of the TM ordering the wrong engine in the first place but don’t expect to get around 9 mpg out of it!
RMC had Gardner’s fitted in Constructors locally but they were not a large order.
Pete.
That’s why most modern engines followed the Gardner way of producing long stroke engines to maintain power and torque across a wide rev range
(can you remember the ■■■■■■■ phrase “let it lug”)
Today’s lorry manufacturers use their own engines and thus giving operators no choice in engine options other than the choice of BHP and engine size
So if a customer likes a certain make of lorry but is disappointed in the engine performance or say reliability they can’t choose a different engine supplier they have to choose a different lorry manufacturer
Is that progress ?
I’d of liked to have seen leyland carry on offering different drive trains or any other assembler so operators could still choose a drivetrain of their choice
gazsa401:
windrush:
[zb]
anorak:
Please forgive my lacking a practical education but, if they had exactly the right stroke, how come they were “boat anchors”?Being low revving, around 1850-1950 rpm max and having a longish stroke, Gardner’s gained by having good pulling power combined with excellent fuel economy. At around the 1100 rpm mark they would slog on forever on hills, however drivers wanted them for speed as well!
I took a newish Foden with a Gardner 201 engine and Fuller gearbox (not as good as Fodens own box with that engine though) back to Patricroft as the driver complained that it was sluggish. Gardner’s test driver tried it loaded up the M63 and across the M62 and said that it went very well, however he also said that if our company had wanted a lorry that romped up hills and kept up with ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered trucks then it was a simple case of the TM ordering the wrong engine in the first place but don’t expect to get around 9 mpg out of it!
RMC had Gardner’s fitted in Constructors locally but they were not a large order.
Pete.
That’s why most modern engines followed the Gardner way of producing long stroke engines to maintain power and torque across a wide rev range
(can you remember the ■■■■■■■ phrase “let it lug”)
Today’s lorry manufacturers use their own engines and thus giving operators no choice in engine options other than the choice of BHP and engine size
So if a customer likes a certain make of lorry but is disappointed in the engine performance or say reliability they can’t choose a different engine supplier they have to choose a different lorry manufacturer
Is that progress ?
I’d of liked to have seen leyland carry on offering different drive trains or any other assembler so operators could still choose a drivetrain of their choice
Errr… I was joking. I was hoping for a series of Loon-themed spoof replies. So far, we only have one, from the man himself.