Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
the g volvo was not liked by drivers becouse of the axle montage 30cm foward whit short elliptic springs did the motor bumpy ,just a tought about US specs in europe ,cheers benkkuThere’s a difference between a totally British designed and built truck just using American ‘influenced’ cab design built on a British chassis as opposed to a British built American truck using American cab and chassis design.The 3 VTG project seemed to have been a case of the former not the latter.
As I’ve said putting the 3 VTG cab on the Crusader chassis maybe using the 700 fixed head and TL12,assuming that they could have been developed to be competitive,or using outsourced Rolls and ■■■■■■■ options if not,probably would have been a more competitive product that the Marathon was.It’s obvious that the money wasted on development and fixing the ‘issues’ concerning both the 500 engine and the ERGO cab set Leyland back to a level against it’s competition which could never be made up.
How on earth did the ergo set Leyland back when it was streets ahead of its rivals when introduced in `64,what set Leyland back was not improving it until its demise in 1980.It was the same basic design with a few modifications in the 16 years it was built thats what let it down it was never improved.Which of course leads to the question ,if it was so bad why did they sell so many and history shows they sold thousands .
Putting a concept cab on a Crusader chassis and then fitting a concept engine into it?The cab was a test bed they only built one 700 engine you seem to be assuming quite alot here and if this 700 engine was a flop just like the 500 what then.And why would the Crusader chassis be the one to use.Just because Scammell gave the option of a DD engine doesnt make the Crusader a world beater,it was just a motor panels cab sat higher on the chassisFirstly the larger capacity,lower speed,lower stressed 700 would have had a lot more of a chance of meeting it’s design aims than the smaller capacity,higher speed,higher stressed 500 ever did.
The idea of the advantages,contained in the fixed head idea,to be able to make a leap forward in specific torque outputs,by way of high forced induction boost pressures,in an environment where the head to block joint issue was a real problem needing investment and time to sort out, v the drawbacks such as regular servicing etc seem to be arguably in favour of the integral block head type design as I’ve said ‘at that point in time’.Which then would have allowed breathing space to get on with developing the TL12 which was the Leyland Group’s only real credible contender in the in house engine range.
As for the Crusader chassis,even with it’s compromised fixed cab,it’s record in service seems to show that it was one of the Leyland group’s best with the ability to easily accept fitment of all types of engines with the added benefit of being able to do so without cooking them.So there’s no reason to think that putting the 3 VTG cab on it wouldn’t have made it an even better product.
Mueller seems to have been bright enough to have foreseen all that which is why Leyland’s answer to that Merc LP which I posted was examples like the 500 ERGO instead of the Crusader with the 3 VTG cab and ‘possibly’,depending on it’s endurance testing results,the 700 fixed head engine producing well over 300 hp at around 2,000 rpm with no blown head gasket issues to worry about.
Although having said that the already available and proven 8V71 T would have easily provided a lot more power than that,at less engine speed,from just 9 litres but then the Brits never could get their heads around the idea and advantages of two stroke diesels at the time.Which is one of the reasons why the Brits lost the colonial market to the Americans.
And as history shows all engines are now 2 stroke V8s 