Dont know if my memory is correct but did not Leyland say that you could get parts for any vehicle up to 25 years after end of production of said model
gingerfold:
The FPT70 range is ideally suited to production at AEC because: -
The proposed model range will use ‘bought in’ engines, gearboxes, and axles. The present AEC heavy goods vehicles use gearboxes and axles from external Divisional sources. Apart from stopping engine production (see below) there will be no great change required to the AEC production facilities.
The FPT70 model range will be a maximum capacity range suitable for operation in the UK, European, and Southern Hemisphere markets. It substitutes for the bulk of the present AEC heavy goods range in terms of specification and principal markets in which they are sold.
The advantages of production at AEC are: -
a) It is the plant which is closest to Europe.
b) It is close to the largest UK docks at London and European ferries at Dover, Harwich, and Southampton. This enables exports to Europe to be carried directly by truck, or in the case of labour problems in the London docks, exports to other parts of the world can be carried by truck for shipment from European ports.
c) it is close to the UK truck sales “centre of gravity”.
d) Press capacity is at a reasonable distance for transportation (PSF at Cowley and Swindon are 55 and 80 miles respectively) for the cab.
e) It has a long straight shop well suited to the manufacture of this type of vehicle. (At present this shop is partially occupied by a static assembly line).This project, as it uses proprietary engines, would enable production of engines to stop completely and the engine plant could be disposed of. The 760 engine is not powerful enough for maximum capacity 4 and 6 wheeled tractors and if V8 production is to continue it should be transferred to Leyland. The decision of the future of the V8 will be made following the engineering studies that are now being carried out.
AEC could then concentrate on vehicle assembly.
It is suggested that AEC should build the proposed FPT70 range from its introduction in 1973 at least until 1975 to replace the present obsolescent AEC and Leyland heavy goods forward control ranges.
The sales of this range are expected to rise from around 20 per week in 1974 to between 75 and 110 per week - depending on Britain’s entry to the Common Market in the late 1970s.
The adoption of vehicle assembly operations at AEC does mean that should the Division centralize its assembly operations at another location the volume can easily be transferred from AEC and then Southall can be closed if necessary.
This proposal does not cover the medium weight AEC range and does not alleviate the short term problems.
Does FPT 70 refer to the cab over Pete knock off ? and isn’t this exactly the business plan and production model which I’ve been talking about in effectively merging Scammell’s and AEC’s operations and business plan ? and vindication of my comments regarding the TL12 v Rolls ■■■■■■■■■■ was the perfect solution ( together with reinstating RM bus production ).So what happened to this plan ?.So why was AEC still poncing about with trying to make the V8 lemon work.Followed by the Marathon lash up let alone the TL12 powered T45.
gingerfold:
cav551:
Is there any mention either in these or other records about AEC’s or Leyland’s obligation regarding the supply of parts for recently discontinued products? The wet liner engines for example were still being supplied only two or three years previously. From memory it was not unknown for the Mercury rigid to require a main chassis rail renewed, and the Regent V certainly had issues with cracking of the banjo crossmember betweeen the engine and gearbox requiring the part to be replaced. Looking ahead only a matter of three or four years from this report the entire commercial vehicle operating industry was to be plunged into despair over the lack of spare parts availability.No mention anywhere in the document about spares. The Mercury rigid chassis could crack at the offside front rear spring hanger bracket. When the weight was increased to 16 tons gross and wheelbases lengthened to 18 feet it caught our several manufacturers with chassis flexing and stressing problems. The Mercury rigid was an all-round better lorry than a Super Comet rigid but the Leyland had a stronger chassis.
Spares. An AEC depot manager, who then became a Leyland depot manager, told me that the typical spares inventory at a large depot was huge and it was a very complex situation because of all the various models within the Truck and Bus Division that they had to cater for. The Marathon was the example he used. Another model came into the system, but there were three engine options eventually, so three times the number of engine spares needed even if it was only basic items such as filters. It was frustrating for someone urgently needing spares, but looking at the bigger picture it must have been a massive nightmare for the dealerships.
Firstly the 760 powered Mandator could have covered the whole range of rigids and drop the Mercury and just concentrating on the 690 for the final run of RM buses.Then the Pete knock off using Rolls or ■■■■■■■ to choice.In which case that would have reduced the engine spares inventory to just two types with Rolls and ■■■■■■■ looking after their’s.
While I was told that spares were actually more profitable than new vehicle manufacture but spares production wasn’t viable without also having a healthy new vehicle production order book because production of just spares alone didn’t create sufficient economy of scale.Which is why spares commonly become a problem sooner or later for any out of production type of vehicle.
ianto:
Dont know if my memory is correct but did not Leyland say that you could get parts for any vehicle up to 25 years after end of production of said model
I have just managed to purchase from DAF a set of D rubbers which fit the injectors for a Leyland 600 or 680 where they pass through the head. In fact these were no longer listed, however the number was immediately recognised from memory and the DAF dealer network works so well that the part number was listed as stock still held at another dealer. It took no more than five minutes from my initial request to confirmation that these were physically available for despatch. 2 years ago I purchased from Volvo a header tank pressure relief valve for a 1961 AEC Reliance, again no more than a few minutes to confirm actual stock.
ramone:
I get the impression reading the report that the BL management didn’t really have a clue what to do with AEC . Close it , don’t close it , stop building the 505 , build it , improve the models , lets not bother ,it goes on and on with no real structure.They suggested that AEC could be just an assembler when all they really had to do was upgrade what they had. By the time the Marathon was launched they had a cab that could have been lowered enoughfor use on the rigids and some Mandator models The TL12 could have been downrated and fit in the 8 wheelers and some 6 wheelers and like Graham mentioned the 505 could have been turbocharged. They already had the Sabre chassis which they could maybe have fitted the TL12 in and they could have tinkered with the idea of building the rear engined RM for LT
Bear in mind that it’s a discussion document, so some of the ideas put forward are certainly weird…wait until you read the next instalment.
Was the Leyland equivalent engine better than AEC’s 505? I have had no real dealings with either apart from servicing but I do know the 505’s our quarry ran before switching to Foden suffered with regular head gasket failure mostly on the rear head.
When I started there in 1975 the stores was still well stocked with AEC parts; springs, hubs, brake parts plus a complete gearbox and all the other shafts and gears (they gave trouble as well apparently) also many new injectors, an injector pump plus cylinder heads and pistons etc. To make room for new Foden spares (plus room for the 50+ car/van and Landrover spares) my late Father in Law (who was stores controller) asked the TM if they could sell the spares off cheaply as several OD’s still ran Marshall’s but the TM wanted them sold at the then current new price. So none were sold, and they are all buried somewhere in the quarry now! 
Pete.
windrush:
Was the Leyland equivalent engine better than AEC’s 505? I have had no real dealings with either apart from servicing but I do know the 505’s our quarry ran before switching to Foden suffered with regular head gasket failure mostly on the rear head.When I started there in 1975 the stores was still well stocked with AEC parts; springs, hubs, brake parts plus a complete gearbox and all the other shafts and gears (they gave trouble as well apparently) also many new injectors, an injector pump plus cylinder heads and pistons etc. To make room for new Foden spares (plus room for the 50+ car/van and Landrover spares) my late Father in Law (who was stores controller) asked the TM if they could sell the spares off cheaply as several OD’s still ran Marshall’s but the TM wanted them sold at the then current new price. So none were sold, and they are all buried somewhere in the quarry now!
Pete.
There wasn’t a Leyland equivalent to the AEC 505 engine, unless you count the normally aspirated Leyland 500 series. The numbers of 505 engines produced annually, as quoted in the document, shows what a successful engine it was. My uncle had eight 505 powered AECs and all gave sterling service, 350,000 miles before being touched apart from routine servicing. Never had any head gasket problems with any of them. They needed to be driven with reasonable revs, not a “slogging” engine when climbing hills, that’s probably why you had head gasket problems.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
cav551:
Is there any mention either in these or other records about AEC’s or Leyland’s obligation regarding the supply of parts for recently discontinued products? The wet liner engines for example were still being supplied only two or three years previously. From memory it was not unknown for the Mercury rigid to require a main chassis rail renewed, and the Regent V certainly had issues with cracking of the banjo crossmember betweeen the engine and gearbox requiring the part to be replaced. Looking ahead only a matter of three or four years from this report the entire commercial vehicle operating industry was to be plunged into despair over the lack of spare parts availability.No mention anywhere in the document about spares. The Mercury rigid chassis could crack at the offside front rear spring hanger bracket. When the weight was increased to 16 tons gross and wheelbases lengthened to 18 feet it caught our several manufacturers with chassis flexing and stressing problems. The Mercury rigid was an all-round better lorry than a Super Comet rigid but the Leyland had a stronger chassis.
Spares. An AEC depot manager, who then became a Leyland depot manager, told me that the typical spares inventory at a large depot was huge and it was a very complex situation because of all the various models within the Truck and Bus Division that they had to cater for. The Marathon was the example he used. Another model came into the system, but there were three engine options eventually, so three times the number of engine spares needed even if it was only basic items such as filters. It was frustrating for someone urgently needing spares, but looking at the bigger picture it must have been a massive nightmare for the dealerships.
Firstly the 760 powered Mandator could have covered the whole range of rigids and drop the Mercury and just concentrating on the 690 for the final run of RM buses.Then the Pete knock off using Rolls or ■■■■■■■ to choice.In which case that would have reduced the engine spares inventory to just two types with Rolls and ■■■■■■■ looking after their’s.
While I was told that spares were actually more profitable than new vehicle manufacture but spares production wasn’t viable without also having a healthy new vehicle production order book because production of just spares alone didn’t create sufficient economy of scale.Which is why spares commonly become a problem sooner or later for any out of production type of vehicle.
The only problem with using the 760 in place of the 505 is that you would immediately lose the best part of a ton of payload, the 760 was a much heavier unit plus it needed a beefier gearbox behind it. And it would use more fuel. In this era of the 1970s payload was of paramount importance in the hire and reward sector, most load rates were based on £ / ton carried. There was still a lot of general haulage done by rigids back then and the UK 16 ton rigid market was massive.
gingerfold:
There wasn’t a Leyland equivalent to the AEC 505 engine, unless you count the normally aspirated Leyland 500 series. The numbers of 505 engines produced annually, as quoted in the document, shows what a successful engine it was. My uncle had eight 505 powered AECs and all gave sterling service, 350,000 miles before being touched apart from routine servicing. Never had any head gasket problems with any of them. They needed to be driven with reasonable revs, not a “slogging” engine when climbing hills, that’s probably why you had head gasket problems.
Hi Graham, I really meant whatever engine Leyland/Albion fitted in their four and six wheelers at the same time as the Mercury and Marshall (I was thinking of the 400) but presumably there wasn’t one? A few of ours lost their fan blades through their radiators which was a known problem apparently but I think our Marshall’s had plenty of rpm under their belts as every route from our quarry was a long 1 in 8 climb and the drivers said that you had to stick in a low gear as the gearchange was too slow to grab the next cog without stalling. They were obviously quite high geared though as the one remaining Marshall powder tanker we had on internal duties when I started there was unable to get up to the quarry tip with a full load on so they sold it for export and used an old Foden instead. 
Back to topic I’m guessing that British Leyland must also have inherited some of the many warranty claims from the earlier BMC FJ/Laird range as the engines built at Bathgate gave many overheating problems as the machine operators there couldn’t maintain the correct liner stand proud. The Longbridge made ones were slightly better (they were also different engines in appearance as there was about (from memory) 3/16" difference in engine length between the two plants so many parts were not interchangeable, one was tagged as the JUJ and the other the UD I think? ) but overall the claims must have been enormous and on going for several years I would think?
Pete.
We don’t really need to go much further than to say there was an AEC AV505 engine (8.2 litres) which was eventually uprated after some 13 years become the AV506. The Leyland engine of the period for equivalent vehicles was initially the 400 (6.5 litres). In the search to make it more reliable it was improved into the 401, the 402, the 410, the 411 and lastly the 420. Leyland finally produced a good reliable engine in the 420 so they stopped making it …and fitted a DAF 620 engine instead! into what became Leyland DAF’s premium 4 wheeler, the Freighter 1617.
Both makes of engine suffered from overheating problems very much worsened by a poor vehicle cooling system design in the Sankey Tilt cab, The top of the coolant header tank, mounted on the front of the engine, was only about two inches higher than the highest coolant passage in the head, the radiator top tank was some six inches or more lower. The fan to begin with, was attached to the water pump so liable to be affected by slipping drive belts. There was an improvement when the fan was relocated to direct drive from the crankshaft. IIRC there was no fan shroud fitted which certainly wouldn’t have helped. In the AEC tilt cab the engine had a propensity to shed fan blades through the radiator. Lose a pint of coolant and you were in trouble. The later ‘mod’ to hang a litre or three in a tank on the back of the cab worked ok until the 3/8" hose steam pipes clogged up or developed an air lock. The Bathgate cab was little better. Considering the AEC Mercury was a flying machine and the Leyland Comet similarly fast, the engines as installed had a hard life.
gingerfold:
The only problem with using the 760 in place of the 505 is that you would immediately lose the best part of a ton of payload, the 760 was a much heavier unit plus it needed a beefier gearbox behind it. And it would use more fuel. In this era of the 1970s payload was of paramount importance in the hire and reward sector, most load rates were based on £ / ton carried. There was still a lot of general haulage done by rigids back then and the UK 16 ton rigid market was massive.
I’d guess let the 760 go and keep 505 in that case ?.There was probably nothing which the 760 could do which the Rolls couldn’t even in the higher weight rigid categories as Foden used to great effect for example ?.With the win win of loads of development cash saved regarding TL12.
… here is the next installment…
- Increase Sales by Building Existing Models from Another Divisional Plant at AEC
To enable this solution to be effective the following criteria must be fulfilled: -
A. The Truck and Bus Division market volume should be maintained in all market segments.
B. The models should be fully engineered and proved so the model can be introduced to AEC quickly.
C. Production capacity should be available for the major units.
The following alternatives are considered: -
(i). Manufacture of the Guy range and close the Guy plant.
(ii). Manufacture of the Bathgate ‘Mastiff’ Range
(iii). Manufacture of the Leyland Lynx / Bison models at AEC
(i). Manufacture of Guy Range
Our present policy is for Guy to concentrate on the production of 32 ton tractors plus a number of 26 ton tractors. The 26 ton units will use the Leyland 500 engine in place of the 505 which will be dropped due to power limitations. 32 ton vehicles will use proprietary engines.
Guy production is approximately 3,000 vehicles per annum (2,770 in 1970), of which 56% are planned to be 32 tonners.
The Guy production plant is old and apart from rear axle and suspension components Guy is an assembly plant. As an assembly operation the Guy range could be built at another location. In certain areas of the Guy range there are adequate Divisional replacements with sufficient production capacity, i.e. the 16 ton and 20/24 ton rigids and the 24/26 ton tractors.
Guy maximum capacity artics hold a share of the market which other Divisional models, with fixed engine / gearbox packages, cannot match at present. The variety of power trains offered enables a model to be tailored to the changes in the market, the concept which is to be exploited to the full with the proposed FPT70 range. This “customizing” facility plays a large part in our ability to contain the competition of the independents and imports until the introduction of FPT70.
The Guy maximum capacity tractors could be built in the AEC long shop until the proposed FPT70 range, which will substitute for the heavy Guy vehicles in price and specification,is ready for production.
This course of action offers the following advantages: -
It will enable Guy to be closed, thus Divisional overheads will be lowered and profits increased.
It gives AEC the type of vehicle for which they are most suited**
It will enable Leyland, Albion and possibly Bathgate to increase their production by taking over the volume of the Guy medium vehicles.
Divisional volume will be maintained.
It is recommended that the Guy plant is closed but the maximum capacity tractor range continues, built at Southall.
Capacity Limitations on Guy 32 ton Tractors
The Guy fitting, machine and body shops have a combined area of approx. 60,000 sq. ft. whereas the long shop at AEC has an area of apprx. 120,000 sq. ft. Thus the assembly capacity for Guy 32 tonners at AEC should be more than adequate and allow for the expected expansion in the 32 ton market.
The main activities in Guy manufacture are as follows.
Trimming the cab
Machining and assembling the rear axle
Fitting the gearbox to the engine and assembling the controls
Miscellaneous machining - e.g. suspension components
Chassis assembly
These activities will all have to be carried out at AEC with the exception of the rear axle manufacture. The Guy rear axle is a special and it is recommended that this unit is dropped in favour of the Maudslay medium hub reduction unit. This axle will need engineering and proving for the Guy model.
** GF must comment on this patronizing and even derogatory comment which totally ignores AEC’s heritage and years of commercial vehicle design, development, and manufacturing.
(ii). Manufacture of the Bathgate ‘Mastiff’ Range
These vehicles would not compete in the premium truck range which the present AEC vehicles are in. Bathgate is also very short of sales volume. Bathgate would lose volume if the Mastiff was built at AEC. Present AEC customers would not move to the Mastiff but to the Leyland Lynx.
I’ll continue next time with the Lynx and Bison proposal of manufacture at AEC…there is a lot of it. 
…to be continued
cav551:
We don’t really need to go much further than to say there was an AEC AV505 engine (8.2 litres) which was eventually uprated after some 13 years become the AV506. The Leyland engine of the period for equivalent vehicles was initially the 400 (6.5 litres). In the search to make it more reliable it was improved into the 401, the 402, the 410, the 411 and lastly the 420. Leyland finally produced a good reliable engine in the 420 so they stopped making it …and fitted a DAF 620 engine instead!
I was impressed with the motor in the '75 Clydesdale that I drove on the council.Reliable and pulled ok even often loaded to within an inch of its life running around the Surrey Hills.
windrush:
gingerfold:
There wasn’t a Leyland equivalent to the AEC 505 engine, unless you count the normally aspirated Leyland 500 series. The numbers of 505 engines produced annually, as quoted in the document, shows what a successful engine it was. My uncle had eight 505 powered AECs and all gave sterling service, 350,000 miles before being touched apart from routine servicing. Never had any head gasket problems with any of them. They needed to be driven with reasonable revs, not a “slogging” engine when climbing hills, that’s probably why you had head gasket problems.Hi Graham, I really meant whatever engine Leyland/Albion fitted in their four and six wheelers at the same time as the Mercury and Marshall (I was thinking of the 400) but presumably there wasn’t one? A few of ours lost their fan blades through their radiators which was a known problem apparently but I think our Marshall’s had plenty of rpm under their belts as every route from our quarry was a long 1 in 8 climb and the drivers said that you had to stick in a low gear as the gearchange was too slow to grab the next cog without stalling. They were obviously quite high geared though as the one remaining Marshall powder tanker we had on internal duties when I started there was unable to get up to the quarry tip with a full load on so they sold it for export and used an old Foden instead.
Back to topic I’m guessing that British Leyland must also have inherited some of the many warranty claims from the earlier BMC FJ/Laird range as the engines built at Bathgate gave many overheating problems as the machine operators there couldn’t maintain the correct liner stand proud. The Longbridge made ones were slightly better (they were also different engines in appearance as there was about (from memory) 3/16" difference in engine length between the two plants so many parts were not interchangeable, one was tagged as the JUJ and the other the UD I think? ) but overall the claims must have been enormous and on going for several years I would think?
Pete.
Hi Pete, yes the Leyland 400 and its variants, whose origins dated back to a WW2 multi-fuel design originally made by Napier. The 505 was a much newer design from the early 1960s, (introduced 1965). The Leyland 401, which I have personal experience of driving in a Super Comet on many occasions, was a good unit, but was 125 bhp, whereas the 505 was 149 bhp and the extra power was certainly noticeable in a 16 tonner. The 401 was a bit more frugal with fuel than the 505, typically 12 mpg loaded with the 401, and 11 mpg loaded with the 505. The 505 needed less gear stick work.
cav551:
We don’t really need to go much further than to say there was an AEC AV505 engine (8.2 litres) which was eventually uprated after some 13 years become the AV506. The Leyland engine of the period for equivalent vehicles was initially the 400 (6.5 litres). In the search to make it more reliable it was improved into the 401, the 402, the 410, the 411 and lastly the 420. Leyland finally produced a good reliable engine in the 420 so they stopped making it …and fitted a DAF 620 engine instead! into what became Leyland DAF’s premium 4 wheeler, the Freighter 1617.Both makes of engine suffered from overheating problems very much worsened by a poor vehicle cooling system design in the Sankey Tilt cab, The top of the coolant header tank, mounted on the front of the engine, was only about two inches higher than the highest coolant passage in the head, the radiator top tank was some six inches or more lower. The fan to begin with, was attached to the water pump so liable to be affected by slipping drive belts. There was an improvement when the fan was relocated to direct drive from the crankshaft. IIRC there was no fan shroud fitted which certainly wouldn’t have helped. In the AEC tilt cab the engine had a propensity to shed fan blades through the radiator. Lose a pint of coolant and you were in trouble. The later ‘mod’ to hang a litre or three in a tank on the back of the cab worked ok until the 3/8" hose steam pipes clogged up or developed an air lock. The Bathgate cab was little better. Considering the AEC Mercury was a flying machine and the Leyland Comet similarly fast, the engines as installed had a hard life.
Yes, the AEC Mercury was a flyer, and it is the only lorry that I did Celtic football ground in Glasgow to Bolton in 4 hours 5 minutes. I had loaded 11 tons of whisky at Grant’s bonded warehouse and there was a clock outside Celtic’s ground that said 4.10 pm as I went past. I was coming down the A74 as it was then and I noticed a car following me, he stayed behind me for mile after mile. Considering the load I was carrying I gunned the Mercury and I pulled into the yard at 8.15 pm, bursting for a “comfort break” as I didn’t dare stop. 
Reading your latest excerpt Graham could explain the Motor Panels AEC pictured at Southall which could have been their take on an AEC assembled GUY. A pointless exercise imho when they knew the Marathon was in the pipeline which would be using Rolls/■■■■■■■ engines . What power did the 506 put out and how long was it before the 500 showed its true colours , would this have been a while after the report was written. Every part of this report gives me the impression that Leyland were very stubborn and patronising in respect of AEC . cav has already mentioned the rear engine RM was much superior to anything Leyland were producing but it was dismissed , Leyland couldnt achieve the heights Daf did with the 680 but wouldnt concede to AEC until they were forced to with the 760. Maybe they should have let AEC develop the 680. The Marathon could have been much better but again I get the feeling AEC were restrained , why they didnt use the AEC back end instead of the Leyland axle. Reading Windrushs comments on the Marshalls they would probably have been better off with the Marshall Majors on quarry work , again this was a down rated version which puzzles me . The Reliance was the same downrated to 165 whereas at 205 - 220 it would have been a much better prospect .
CF mentioned in an earlier post that AEC should have developed a TL13 from the TL12 which would probably have been more successful if I am understanding correctly ( I`m limited on these things) that he meant a longer stroke slower revving engine . What AEC needed but unfortunately never happened was a management buyout to remove the shackles of the BL hierarchy . The potential was immense , I will leave you with a thought , I am getting more and more frustrated reading these excerpts but what was it like for those men down in Southall that had to live with the incompetence of the men in suits up the road
ramone:
CF mentioned in an earlier post that AEC should have developed a TL13 from the TL12 which would probably have been more successful if I am understanding correctly ( I`m limited on these things) that he meant a longer stroke slower revving engine . What AEC needed but unfortunately never happened was a management buyout to remove the shackles of the BL hierarchy . The potential was immense , I will leave you with a thought , I am getting more and more frustrated reading these excerpts but what was it like for those men down in Southall that had to live with the incompetence of the men in suits up the road
That’s the idea ramone.Add 10 mm to the stroke taking it to 152 mm which would have meant an easily doable block casting design change but keeping all the same bore centre line spacings and bore sizes so no problem with using the same machining process in that regard.While the amount of boost which the same head to block fastening design could take was already a known quantity added to the extra leverage.The result being a 13.2 litre F89/F12 and DAF 2800 killer but not as big as the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■ wait that’s ■■■■■■ off everyone from the Swedes to Leyland’s Dutch mates and ■■■■■■■■ UK operations. 
Carryfast:
That’s the idea ramone.Add 10 mm to the stroke taking it to 152 mm which would have meant an easily doable block casting design change but keeping all the same bore centre line spacings and bore sizes so no problem with using the same machining process in that regard.While the amount of boost which the same head to block fastening design could take was already a known quantity added to the extra leverage.The result being a 13.2 litre F89/F12 and DAF 2800 killer but not as big as the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■ wait that’s ■■■■■■ off everyone from the Swedes to Leyland’s Dutch mates and ■■■■■■■■ UK operations.
How do you know it would have gone out to 13 litres? You would need to see drawings showing clearance of the big ends and caps to the skirt. Yoy would then have to calculate the additional stress on the mains due to the extra moment of inertia of the crank and conn rods. Why not take it out to 14 litres, while you’re at it?
Cloud cuckoo land.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
That’s the idea ramone.Add 10 mm to the stroke taking it to 152 mm which would have meant an easily doable block casting design change but keeping all the same bore centre line spacings and bore sizes so no problem with using the same machining process in that regard.While the amount of boost which the same head to block fastening design could take was already a known quantity added to the extra leverage.The result being a 13.2 litre F89/F12 and DAF 2800 killer but not as big as the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■ wait that’s ■■■■■■ off everyone from the Swedes to Leyland’s Dutch mates and ■■■■■■■■ UK operations.How do you know it would have gone out to 13 litres? You would need to see drawings showing clearance of the big ends and caps to the skirt. Yoy would then have to calculate the additional stress on the mains due to the extra moment of inertia of the crank and conn rods. Why not take it out to 14 litres, while you’re at it?
Cloud cuckoo land.
It obviously wouldn’t have been the same block design in terms of the skirt nor main bearing design we already know that the crank was mounted too low in the block relative to the sump to start with let alone lateral clearance.
It would have been the same block regarding cylinder head fastening and bore spacing.Bearing in mind that if Triumph could manage an almost 25% increase in the stroke of the the 2000 car engine without any problem in the required re engineering of its block casting,then I’m sure that AEC could manage a less than 10% increase over the TL12’s.We’re not just talking about chucking a longer throw crank into the thing in either case.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
That’s the idea ramone.Add 10 mm to the stroke taking it to 152 mm which would have meant an easily doable block casting design change but keeping all the same bore centre line spacings and bore sizes so no problem with using the same machining process in that regard.While the amount of boost which the same head to block fastening design could take was already a known quantity added to the extra leverage.The result being a 13.2 litre F89/F12 and DAF 2800 killer but not as big as the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■ wait that’s ■■■■■■ off everyone from the Swedes to Leyland’s Dutch mates and ■■■■■■■■ UK operations.How do you know it would have gone out to 13 litres? You would need to see drawings showing clearance of the big ends and caps to the skirt. Yoy would then have to calculate the additional stress on the mains due to the extra moment of inertia of the crank and conn rods. Why not take it out to 14 litres, while you’re at it?
Cloud cuckoo land.
My point anorak was there were so many possibilities most of which wouldn’t have broken the bank but the 760 was the only real development