There probably was but for more specialist magazines 
kr79:
0
I think that may well be a TL12 looking at the badge , so the stroke will be all wrong , i wonder if she had an AEC badge anywhere â â ? 
I voulenteer to look for it and check the bore size
newmercman:
Whatever the flaws in the 760 and TL12, as Ramone says, the engine worked for many years, I myself spent a lot of my childhood on top of a 760 and it never broke down once, unlike the F88 that followed it, not that the Volvo was unreliable, but it did drop a valve and that caused a bit of a catastrophic chain reaction within the engine, the 760 had no such problems, so I can absolutely say that the AEC lump was better than the Volvo.Now history has proven that the 760 was at the end of its potential in the TL12 version, just as every other engine on offer at that time was to become at some point in the future. The same applies to the engines in the lorries on the market today, the newest designs like the DD in Daimler products, the MX range in Paccar etc etc will all become obsolete in the future. Engineers will do what engineers do and try to push the boundaries with revolutionary new designs, but they will have the benefit of hindsight, so they will know not to try and produce a monobloc design, or a gas turbine, but they will also look at the failed designs of their own engineering departments too and there will be many to choose from, a visit to any of the manufacturerâs museums will show you that there have been all kinds of weird and wonderful efforts at redesigning the way we power our lorries, up to now the only things that have changed from the first diesel engines to the most modern engines are pretty basic, the fundamentals remain the same.
Developments have been, OHC, multivalve heads, turbochargers, intercoolers, electronics and stronger lighter materials with better manufacturing tolerances. All of the other Carlos Fandango ideas have failed in one way or another. However the difference between the situation at the other manufacturers and BL was the real problem, none of its rivals had a car division hemorrhaging cash, so alongside their revolutionary designs that failed, they also had a more mainstream alternative to put out, BL never had this luxury, the three projects mentioned here, compact V8, 500 series and Gas Turbine swallowed up the complete R&D budget that was left after the car division had drained the piggy bank, so BL trucks became collateral damage in the fiasco that was created not by designers or engineers, but by politicians.
Were the road tests in the British press biased or genuine ? I remember reading a Marathon 2 road test which gave a glowing report , and i vaguely remeber the TL12 breaking the mpg record on a CM road test coupled to a high average overall speed
So hereâs something that doesnât quite fit in with the theory. In 1987 Detroit Diesel introduced a state of the art, spanking brand new, clean sheet, 4 stroke turbocharged and intercooled diesel engine â the 60 series, with overhead camshaft and electronic diesel control. Maximum rating 350 bhp and a whopping 1250 lbft of torque. Thatâs more torque than the 14 litre â â â â â â â 400.
All of this from 11.1 litres (677 cu in) bore 130 mm x stroke 139mm . The masterpiece (and it is a very good engine) making its debut 23 years later than the AECâs incorrectly proportioned AV691 and AV 760, and 14 years later than the similarly incorrect TL 12. With that serious error to dissuade them and with their stateside competitors mostly settled on 152mm, just what were they thinking of? With just not enough leverage from that short stroke and with all that pressure it was simply bound to grenade.
It stayed in production for 11 years, until 1998.
DD did introduce a longer stroke 12.7 litre engine based on the block at the same time, however this had not been the original plan.
That 60 series was actually a â â â â â â â design that they deemed unnecessary due to the strength of the N14. It then went to John Deere, who thought it too complicated and they sold it to Roger Penske who had bailed out Detroit Diesel. It is recognized as one of the best diesel engines ever made.
Ramone, there was absolutely no bias whatsoever during a TRUCK road test, there were also formulae to balance out the variables so the figures printed in the magazine were an accurate representation of what a lorry was capable of achieving in the real world.
There were also checks and balances to ensure that the manufacturer hadnât given us a ringer.
cav551:
So hereâs something that doesnât quite fit in with the theory. In 1987 Detroit Diesel introduced a state of the art, spanking brand new, clean sheet, 4 stroke turbocharged and intercooled diesel engine â the 60 series, with overhead camshaft and electronic diesel control. Maximum rating 350 bhp and a whopping 1250 lbft of torque. Thatâs more torque than the 14 litre â â â â â â â 400.All of this from 11.1 litres (677 cu in) bore 130 mm x stroke 139mm . The masterpiece (and it is a very good engine) making its debut 23 years later than the AECâs incorrectly proportioned AV691 and AV 760, and 14 years later than the similarly incorrect TL 12. With that serious error to dissuade them and with their stateside competitors mostly settled on 152mm, just what were they thinking of? With just not enough leverage from that short stroke and with all that pressure it was simply bound to grenade.
It stayed in production for 11 years, until 1998.
DD did introduce a longer stroke 12.7 litre engine based on the block at the same time, however this had not been the original plan.
Exception proving a rule ?.
Or maybe not.
To look at it another way there must have been a reason âwhyâ they decided to ditch an expensive clean sheet design after just an 11 year production life at which point DDâs management were probably saying thank zb we had the 130 x 160 version in our armoury.On that note it would be interesting to find out the cylinder pressures needed to make 112 lb/ft per litre with a 139 mm stroke.While to be fair the 14 litre â â â â â â â did have the potential in it to make 130 lb/ft + per litre . 
bma.finland:
this get boring ,there have to be somthing else then bore and storke that failed the company ,usualy the thing ,when you take 1+1+1+1+1 it isnot 4 it can bee-1,cheers benkku
Of course you are right. In the period the Leyland group engineered its demise, there were good engines of all dimensions on the drawing boards of Europe- straight sixes of all sizes, undersquare Vs and even oversquare V8s. The pleasure of researching that period is to observe the diversity of the engineering. To rubbish it with a simplistic view, based on a contemporary consensus, is sacrilege.
I read again Bob Fryarsâ last article that he compiled last Autumn and it mainly deals with the personalities running both AEC and Leyland, and the combined group, of which of course, he was one. Incidentally, Bobâs father, Sir Robert Fryars, was company secretary and director of AEC from the 1920s until his retirement in the late 1950s, so Bobâs own in-depth knowledge of AEC, its products, and policyâs, pre-dated his own employment with the company. Unfortunately I cannot re-produce much of what Bob wrote, even though all the people (Bob excepted) are dead. Bob obviously has had years to consider his opinions, some of which are critical of the AEC people back in the days when it was an independent concern. Or, nominally an independent concern. I had mentioned in an earlier post the 1933 agreement with LT and it was actually for 80% of LTâs vehicle and spares orders, with agreed design and development input into new products by LT engineers. Bob thinks that by the 1950s this agreement was a âshoddy dealâ as far as AEC was concerned and it was hampering some of AECâs design ambitions. Moving on to later design and development by the early 1970s all new major design programmes had been shelved due to political pressures in just keeping the entire mess afloat and over 100,000 employees in work. He also states that the man running the empire at that time had absolutely no knowledge, concept, or idea about new product development. And he even admitted as much
My own opinion about Bathgate is that history tells us that job creation schemes on such a large scale rarely succeed.
The 60 series is way better than the junk detroit turn out now as Mercedes customers are finding out
newmercman:
That 60 series was actually a â â â â â â â design that they deemed unnecessary due to the strength of the N14. It then went to John Deere, who thought it too complicated and they sold it to Roger Penske who had bailed out Detroit Diesel. It is recognized as one of the best diesel engines ever made.Ramone, there was absolutely no bias whatsoever during a TRUCK road test, there were also formulae to balance out the variables so the figures printed in the magazine were an accurate representation of what a lorry was capable of achieving in the real world.
There were also checks and balances to ensure that the manufacturer hadnât given us a ringer.
So accurate figures on a level playing field, the results speak for themselves , so again I will ask if the TL12 was a lemon not forgetting it was put together on a very tight budget what could AEC have achieved with full financial backing ?
There was talk the v8 had been much improved but blocked by Leyland but who knows?
Although the bore and stroke were wrong so a complete lemon to the rubber duck of leatherhead.
gingerfold:
I had mentioned in an earlier post the 1933 agreement with LT and it was actually for 80% of LTâs vehicle and spares orders, with agreed design and development input into new products by LT engineers. Bob thinks that by the 1950s this agreement was a âshoddy dealâ as far as AEC was concerned and it was hampering some of AECâs design ambitions. Moving on to later design and development by the early 1970s all new major design programmes had been shelved due to political pressures in just keeping the entire mess afloat
The LT design requirement angle seems to agree with what cav had said previously.However neither of those issues seem to leave any reason as to why the 760 wasnât a clean sheet 136 x 152 TL13 design from day 1 ( bearing in mind the 260 turbo Rolls at around that point ) thereby effectively putting all of its present and future design life competition on the back foot and paying dividends in the case of the Crusader let alone introduction of the T45.
Unless that is its designers actually wanted that and those âpolitical pressuresâ were there and stopped them well before the 1970âs.
In which case,putting that scenario,together with the way in which the next best only credible alternative in the form of the 680 was somehow effectively given away to the foreign competition,that would fit the idea of UK investment bankers having more of an interest in our foreign competitors than our own industries,possibly with US pressure for payback of Europeâs war debts which combined would have obviously outweighed ours.With the obvious inference of deliberate industrial sabotage.IE if political interference is going to be a major contributor then that obviously raises the question why and who gained from it.
For the record the above scenario is exactly one of the reasons which my own father and many others of that generation believed and told me concerning the fortunes of our stalled industrial post war recovery v that of Germanyâs at least.With the resulting disillusionment among the post war workforce then being used as a scapegoat and diversion by those who were really to blame for it.
kr79:
The 60 series is way better than the junk detroit turn out now as Mercedes customers are finding out
On the American side the real question then being the choice between 60 series v N14.Personally Iâd be very surprised if the 60 series was the most cost effective way of making 1,800 lb/ft of torque,including lifetime overhaul/rebuild costs. Also bearing in mind the general consensus there which seems to be that 1,800 lb/ft is about optimum in terms of cost/ benefit.
Leyland were using the 680 which become the tl11 in to the 80s so why didnât they devolp it further.
Without checking back I canât be sure whether I implied anything misleading before, but the 691 and 760 were introduced at the same time, with one being a more powerful option for purchasers. It was not a subsequent attempt to keep up with the competition. This was exactly the same as had happened with the 590 and 690.
An example of the interference suffered by the AEC from LT would be the A13*/A14* series of six cylinder petrol engines. In 1929 the Associated Equipment Company was a subsidiary of the merged London General Omnibus Company and the Underground Group ( which later was to become London Transport). At the specific instruction of the LGOC, the AEC was required to construct an in line eight cylinder version of the engine. Five were produced and fitted experimentally to LGOC buses in spring 1930, all bar one were removed by December. The engine required an untidy extension of the bonnet and forward movement of the radiator in order to fit. It also required permission to exceed the overall length limit. George Rackham, AECâs chief engineer was not amused by the interference so the 7th November 1930 board minutes of the AEC record:
" The chief engineer also recorded the opinion that the activities of the Design & Experimental Department should be dedicated primarily to the perfection of the present range of models rather than to the consideration of alternative or new designs."
kr79:
Leyland were using the 680 which become the tl11 in to the 80s so why didnât they devolp it further.
Maybe because the British âinvestment institutionsâ,possibly under American pressure,decided to invest the money lent to us as part of the Marshall Aid plan,in foreign banks and industry not ours thereby providing the Dutch with more cash to do the job properly ?.
On that note check out what was going on in my Fatherâs line of work during at least the immediate post war years.Youâll see the same parallels of a government ( read bankers ) deliberate starvation of product development funding and forcing together of alienated seperate firms being forced to compete for meagre investment funds.As I was told all part of the same âbehind closed doors dealingâ going on to âre payâ the Americans for the economic damage caused by the Germans. 
Carryfast:
kr79:
Leyland were using the 680 which become the tl11 in to the 80s so why didnât they devolp it further.Maybe because the British âinvestment institutionsâ,possibly under American pressure,decided to invest the money lent to us as part of the Marshall Aid plan,in foreign banks and industry not ours thereby providing the Dutch with more cash to do the job properly ?.
On that note check out what was going on in my Fatherâs line of work during at least the immediate post war years.Youâll see the same parallels of a government ( read bankers ) deliberate starvation of product development funding and forcing together of alienated seperate firms being forced to compete for meagre investment funds.As I was told all part of the same âbehind closed doors dealingâ going on to âre payâ the Americans for the economic damage caused by the Germans.
Please list the amounts of money lent under the Marshall Plan, by country.
[zb]
anorak:
Please list the amounts of money lent under the Marshall Plan, by country.
Itâs not a question of any public listing âby countryâ.Itâs a question of how much of the so called âBritish shareâ was covertly diverted to add to the foreign share.Thereby leaving an obvious gap between what was shown on paper compared to what British industry actually received when it asked the government/bankers to deliver.Which would then logically result in more investment cash being available to our European competitorsâ manufacturing industries ( and/or American in the case of the aircraft industry ).
In addition to direct/indirect government interference in the shelving/sabotaging of any British developments which threatened more financially important combined European post war recovery.Or for that matter US interests in which case you can add the TSR2 and almost if not wholly the VC10 at its design stage and eventual fate respectively to that list.
Maybe in addition to the TL13 that never even got onto the drawing board unlike the 500.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
I had mentioned in an earlier post the 1933 agreement with LT and it was actually for 80% of LTâs vehicle and spares orders, with agreed design and development input into new products by LT engineers. Bob thinks that by the 1950s this agreement was a âshoddy dealâ as far as AEC was concerned and it was hampering some of AECâs design ambitions. Moving on to later design and development by the early 1970s all new major design programmes had been shelved due to political pressures in just keeping the entire mess afloatThe LT design requirement angle seems to agree with what cav had said previously.However neither of those issues seem to leave any reason as to why the 760 wasnât a clean sheet 136 x 152 TL13 design from day 1 ( bearing in mind the 260 turbo Rolls at around that point ) thereby effectively putting all of its present and future design life competition on the back foot and paying dividends in the case of the Crusader let alone introduction of the T45.
Unless that is its designers actually wanted that and those âpolitical pressuresâ were there and stopped them well before the 1970âs.
In which case,putting that scenario,together with the way in which the next best only credible alternative in the form of the 680 was somehow effectively given away to the foreign competition,that would fit the idea of UK investment bankers having more of an interest in our foreign competitors than our own industries,possibly with US pressure for payback of Europeâs war debts which combined would have obviously outweighed ours.With the obvious inference of deliberate industrial sabotage.IE if political interference is going to be a major contributor then that obviously raises the question why and who gained from it.
For the record the above scenario is exactly one of the reasons which my own father and many others of that generation believed and told me concerning the fortunes of our stalled industrial post war recovery v that of Germanyâs at least.With the resulting disillusionment among the post war workforce then being used as a scapegoat and diversion by those who were really to blame for it.
Why would they develop 2 new 13 litre engines at the same time , the V8 was the clean sheet â â ?