I wish uk workers would do a days work for a days pay, dont get me wrong there are some grafters in this country but not enough, and i do belive it will turn full circle
SHYTOT:
I wish uk workers would do a days work for a days pay, dont get me wrong there are some grafters in this country but not enough, and i do belive it will turn full circle
The ‘circle’ so far having been a case of the irony of the Socialists trying to hijack the justified aspirations of the working class of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.Combined with the irony of the ‘Capitalist’ system then giving their jobs to cheap effectively slave labour under the Communist type economic system.
The smoking gun being the example of US workers being treated in just the same way as their Brit counterparts in that regard where we could obviously safely count out any issues of politically motivated militancy just like the majority of cases in the UK automotive industry.Which would arguably include most of Leyland Group.
SHYTOT:
I wish uk workers would do a days work for a days pay, dont get me wrong there are some grafters in this country but not enough, and i do belive it will turn full circle
Well said SHYTOT, Regards Larry.
Carryfast when people apply for a job the first question they ask is whats the money like, its at that point if the money is not good enough dont take the job instead of taking the job and trying to make the job fit the money because its us silly buggers that have to sit about hours on end waiting to be loaded / offloaded, and drivers making a 10 hour shift into a 14 /15 hour shift by ■■■■■■■ about telling tale every where sat in laybys
callin on their mobile phones, my lad ask me every week how do big hauliers make any money? my answer is if they have sixty drivers they will have 20 good drivers 20 average drivers and 20 bone idle drivers, in that senario the good drivers are carrying the bone idle drivers giving the company 60 avarage drivers, as work is costed on mr average they all get by.
SHYTOT:
Carryfast when people apply for a job the first question they ask is whats the money like, its at that point if the money is not good enough dont take the job
That idea won’t work in an environment of double figure inflation and the value of the pound in free fall.Meaning that wages were actually going through the floor in real terms without equal double figure wage demands needed to stabilise the situation. 
The usual lie then being that inflation was wage led not price led.Just like the lie that the Brit workforce were all Communist politically motivated militants when that was just a small minority with exactly the same issues of falling wages and resulting strikes affecting the US economy and automotive industry as part of that.
The issue in the case of the fall of Leyland Group being that the money spent on the losses run up by BMC Group didn’t leave enough to pay either the waste of space BMC Group’s workforce or the backbone of the Group as a whole in the form of Jaguar/Rover/Triumph and Leyland/Scammell trucks etc.Or for that matter sufficient cash to turn that crippled 142 mm stroke AEC 760/TL12 design into the 152-162 mm DAF,Volvo,■■■■■■■ and Rolls beater needed.Or for that matter a T45 cab designed along the lines of the SA 400 and eventual DAF 95,as opposed to what the market ended up with.
There has not been any inflation for the last 6 or 7 years, i dont know how old you are Carryfast but i doubt you or i will see double digit inflation in our lifetime, and yes i can remember when inflation was running at 15 to 18 per cent and interest rates were high, deal with the problem when it arises not before
SHYTOT:
There has not been any inflation for the last 6 or 7 years, i dont know how old you are Carryfast but i doubt you or i will see double digit inflation in our lifetime, and yes i can remember when inflation was running at 15 to 18 per cent and interest rates were high, deal with the problem when it arises not before
In the case of the fall of Leyland we’re actually talking about the key period between around 1965-80.
As for now the inflation figures are about as believable as those related to economic ‘recovery’.
Another CM article on the subject, partially written by Pat Kennett and with an interesting quote from Bob Friars:
cav551:
Another CM article on the subject, partially written by Pat Kennett and with an interesting quote from Bob Friars:
It would be fair to say that it was mainly if not all the BMC division of the car side which was taking the money certainly not Jaguar/Rover/Triumph which their relevant histories suggest were actually profitable ‘net contributors’ to the Group overall.Which was not only a case of them paying for BMC’s failures but probably also including the warranty costs and loss of customers caused by the V8 and 500 truck engine lemons.Which then leaves the question if the TL12 was supposedly as good as the article paints it why did Leyland need to bother with outsourcing its engine requirements to Rolls and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ it would be an equal exaggeration to suggest that the TL12 created a better customer acceptance environment than those outsourced options.On that note the TL 12’s 280 hp at 2,200 rpm and 780 lb/ft certainly wasn’t any so called ‘world beater’ that could have ever justified any claim of ‘what might have been’.When the fact is,by the standards of the day,it was a relative no hoper v its ■■■■■■■ and Rolls competitors.Which isn’t surprising,just like the V8,having been crippled by its typical compromised AEC short stroke design philosophy.
cav551:
Another CM article on the subject, partially written by Pat Kennett and with an interesting quote from Bob Friars:
Thanks for posting that cav551 , interesting to say the least , there always seems to be the impression that the potential was there but the effort wasnt. It wouldnt have broken the bank to have improved the ride and a few of the other minor faults , an improvement on the quality of fixtures and fittings in the cab and a Rockwell rear axle would have been a start 
Perhaps some attempt needs to be made to defend the AEC engine by comparing it as near as can be with its direct equivalent competitors of a similar size and period. The AEC engine as has been repeatedly mentioned, is supposedly hampered by its inferior bore to stroke ratio. I have chosen 200 bhp non turbo engines of approximately 12 litres capacity with a 130 mm bore size as an initial datum point. Using figures from ERF sources where possible the results are as below. Both AEC and Leyland offered a variety of derated and rev limited engines. The AEC does not seem to be handicapped in relation to its rivals. To run in excess of 1800/2000 rpm a fully balanced crankshaft and vibration damper was essential.
AEC AV 691 11.3 litres 130x142mm 205bhp @ 2200 rpm 573 lbft @ 1200 rpm weight 903 kg
■■■■■■■ NHK 205 12.2 litres 130x152mm 197bhp @ 2100 rpm 560 lbft @ 1500 rpm weight 1085 kg
Rolls Royce Eagle 205 12.2 litres 130x152mm 205bhp @ 2100 rpm 560 lbft @ 1350 rpm weight 1111 kg
The smaller Leyland 680 Power Plus
11.1 litres 127x146mm 200bhp @ 2200rpm 548 lbft @ 1200rpm weight ?
The even smaller Gardner 6LXB
10.45 litres 120x152mm 180bhp @ 1850rpm 538 lbft @ 1100 rpm weight 708 kg
The more powerful ■■■■■■■ and Rolls engines
■■■■■■■ 220 12.2 litres 130x152mm 212bhp @ 2100 rpm 585 lbft @ 1300 rpm weight 1085 kg
Rolls Eagle 220 12.2 litres 130x152mm 214bhp @ 2100 rpm 594 lbft @ 1400 rpm weight 1111 kg
The larger AEC AV 760
12.4 litres 136x142mm 213bhp @ 2200rpm 593lbft @ 1300rpm weight 923 kg
The older AEC AV 690
11.3 litres 130x142mm 175bhp @ 2200 rpm 557 lbft @ 1100 rpm weight 794 kg
cav551:
Perhaps some attempt needs to be made to defend the AEC engine by comparing it as near as can be with its direct equivalent competitors of a similar size and period. The AEC engine as has been repeatedly mentioned, is supposedly hampered by its inferior bore to stroke ratio. I have chosen 200 bhp non turbo engines of approximately 12 litres capacity with a 130 mm bore size as an initial datum point. Using figures from ERF sources where possible the results are as below. Both AEC and Leyland offered a variety of derated and rev limited engines. The AEC does not seem to be handicapped in relation to its rivals. To run in excess of 1800/2000 rpm a fully balanced crankshaft and vibration damper was essential.AEC AV 691 11.3 litres 130x142mm 205bhp @ 2200 rpm 573 lbft @ 1200 rpm weight 903 kg
■■■■■■■ NHK 205 12.2 litres 130x152mm 197bhp @ 2100 rpm 560 lbft @ 1500 rpm weight 1085 kg
Rolls Royce Eagle 205 12.2 litres 130x152mm 205bhp @ 2100 rpm 560 lbft @ 1350 rpm weight 1111 kg
The smaller Leyland 680 Power Plus
11.1 litres 127x146mm 200bhp @ 2200rpm 548 lbft @ 1200rpm weight ?
The even smaller Gardner 6LXB
10.45 litres 120x152mm 180bhp @ 1850rpm 538 lbft @ 1100 rpm weight 708 kg
The more powerful ■■■■■■■ and Rolls engines
■■■■■■■ 220 12.2 litres 130x152mm 212bhp @ 2100 rpm 585 lbft @ 1300 rpm weight 1085 kg
Rolls Eagle 220 12.2 litres 130x152mm 214bhp @ 2100 rpm 594 lbft @ 1400 rpm weight 1111 kg
The larger AEC AV 760
12.4 litres 136x142mm 213bhp @ 2200rpm 593lbft @ 1300rpm weight 923 kg
The older AEC AV 690
11.3 litres 130x142mm 175bhp @ 2200 rpm 557 lbft @ 1100 rpm weight 794 kg
The problem being that we’re comparing ultimate turbocharged development potential of the 760 v it’s direct competitors in the form of the DAF 11.6,14 litre ■■■■■■■ and Rolls Eagle.It was at that turbocharged 280 + hp benchmark where the shortfall in the 760’s/TL12’s stroke became clear simply because of the fact that for any given pressure applied at the piston the extra leverage at the crank always wins out.Hence better reliable ultimate output potential and resulting more customer acceptability of the DAF 11.6.Or the14 litre ■■■■■■■ and Rolls Eagle options which obviously rightly found more customer acceptance in the T45 than the TL12.Thereby leaving Leyland without any credible in house engine option as a supposed all in house engine manufacturer .
On that note the 760’s/TL12’s output comparison doesn’t look so good v the DAF 11.6 DKS or the Rolls Eagle 260 or 305 let alone the even more powerful versions of the Rolls or 14 litre ■■■■■■■ put in the T45.
The AEC retention of the 142 mm stroke was a continuation of its engine development dating back to the late 1930s when the 9.6 litre was planned for the RT bus for London Transport. Very few were made pre-war, just development engines, and production didn’t commence until 1946. This was a successful engine in the RT bus and Mk.III bus and lorry ranges, at a time when operating conditions were very leisurely compared with later. The 11.3 litre AEC engine was an increased bore 9.6 litre retaining the same 142 mm stroke, and this was probably an acceptable development in the 1950s. The 11.3 litre spawned the higher power output AV690, AV691, and AV760 engines, all retaining the 142 mm stroke. So if piston stroke length is considered as an issue to later engine success, then the mistake occurred in the 1950s when the AV690 was under development. It was, in effect, a clean-sheet design if compared to the 11.3 litre, but what was perceived as a previously acceptable piston stroke dimension was retained. From the AV690 onwards AEC used monobloc crankcases so a longer stroke could have been accomodated in the redesign of the bottom end of the engine. Hindsight is marvellous.
gingerfold:
The AEC retention of the 142 mm stroke was a continuation of its engine development dating back to the late 1930s when the 9.6 litre was planned for the RT bus for London Transport. Very few were made pre-war, just development engines, and production didn’t commence until 1946. This was a successful engine in the RT bus and Mk.III bus and lorry ranges, at a time when operating conditions were very leisurely compared with later. The 11.3 litre AEC engine was an increased bore 9.6 litre retaining the same 142 mm stroke, and this was probably an acceptable development in the 1950s. The 11.3 litre spawned the higher power output AV690, AV691, and AV760 engines, all retaining the 142 mm stroke. So if piston stroke length is considered as an issue to later engine success, then the mistake occurred in the 1950s when the AV690 was under development. It was, in effect, a clean-sheet design if compared to the 11.3 litre, but what was perceived as a previously acceptable piston stroke dimension was retained. From the AV690 onwards AEC used monobloc crankcases so a longer stroke could have been accomodated in the redesign of the bottom end of the engine. Hindsight is marvellous.
In the case of the 760/TL12 I don’t think the need for a redesign of the 690,to provide at least a 6 inch stroke to go with the larger bore,was/is a case of ‘hindsight’.Surely part of any designer’s thinking in the day would/should have been to look at what the competition was doing ( in this case ■■■■■■■ and Rolls ) and understand why and then at least match it.IE the point being that it was foreseeable that what might have worked in the 1950’s in the case of the 690 wasn’t going to work during the Leyland Group era of the 1960’s onward and the problem obviously took place at ‘that’ time with the botched design upgrade of the 760/TL12,not the 1950’s with the 690,in that regard.
In the case of those designers at Southall they should/would have contacted Carryfast immediately if they had any sense. Surely his knowledge of anything / everything would have been invaluable in their industry ,after all they didnt have a good track record on engine design just look at those terrible Routemasters that were a total disaster and werent around for too long.
With the right funding I for 1 have no doubt in thinking AEC would still be around today
I think we could all continue deliberating about bore and stroke dimensions and ratios until the Atki with the 6LW comes into the yard. But it is pure speculation unless we have access to more comprehensive information relative to the cylinder blocks, cylinder heads, crankcases and cranks.
Critically we need dimensions such as:-
- Bore spacing and distance from front to rear of the cylinder block.
- Distance from C/L crank to top of cylinder block,
- Clearance available in crank case to take a bigger swing,
- Distance from top of cylinder block down to bottom of bore (bore depth)
No.1 in my view is the most crucial as it affects:-
a) Bore and liner stability,
b) Coolant flow and oil circulation capacity through to the cylinder heads
c) Strength potential for anchoring the cylinder head studs.
Please step forward anyone who has access to either an o.680 or AV760 cylinder block.
All the above information would be most useful however the real “gold dust “ would be input from the actual engine designers who were involved but, as all this was 50+ years ago, then this becomes increasingly unlikely.
Tomdhu:
I think we could all continue deliberating about bore and stroke dimensions and ratios until the Atki with the 6LW comes into the yard. But it is pure speculation unless we have access to more comprehensive information relative to the cylinder blocks, cylinder heads, crankcases and cranks.Critically we need dimensions such as:-
- Bore spacing and distance from front to rear of the cylinder block.
- Distance from C/L crank to top of cylinder block,
- Clearance available in crank case to take a bigger swing,
- Distance from top of cylinder block down to bottom of bore (bore depth)
No.1 in my view is the most crucial as it affects:-
a) Bore and liner stability,
b) Coolant flow and oil circulation capacity through to the cylinder heads
c) Strength potential for anchoring the cylinder head studs.Please step forward anyone who has access to either an o.680 or AV760 cylinder block.
All the above information would be most useful however the real “gold dust “ would be input from the actual engine designers who were involved but, as all this was 50+ years ago, then this becomes increasingly unlikely.
Which leaves the question was there actually anything really preventing the ability of the 760’s/TL12’s designers from calling for any changes required in the architecture of the engine to meet the required aims of at least matching the 6 inch stroke of the Eagle and 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in the upgrade of the 690 ?.Bearing in mind that Leyland Group management had already shown that it was prepared to accept such required radical changes to previous designs at least in regard to Webster’s upgrade of the Triumph 6 cylinder engine on the car side.In this case such design change obviously being at least as important to the long term viability,of the Leyland Group truck side,as an in house manufacturer, if not more.
Never ever been or will be a good V CONFIGURATION ENGINE. 
I`ve just found this on the net , there seems to be a familiar theme concerning the demise of the AEC
Veloce Publishing – Sample Text
veloce.co.uk/shop/products/p … 415&text….
shirtbox2003:
Never ever been or will be a good V CONFIGURATION ENGINE.
Like any other type they have their advantages and disadvantages.The advantages increasing as engine capacity and cylinder numbers increase beyond a certain threshold.Which would arguably be anything over 6 cylinders and around 15 litres in the case of truck engines.The issue in this case not being which configuration to use but getting the overall capacity and bore/stroke equation right which will dictate cylinder numbers anyway.That applies wether it was Ford using the V8 configuration to beat the V12 Ferraris at Le Mans or the AEC V8 being crushed by the DAF development of the 680.
Make no mistake,given the right overall capacity,together with the right bore and stroke measurements,the V8 or V12 configurations are both about as good as it gets.Which is why the Spitfire wasn’t powered by an inline 6.