AEC V8

[newmercman]

Don’t lose heart chaps, some really interesting information has surfaced in response to the ramblings from Junction 9.

Now let’s go back 50yrs or so, 32ton was going to be a thing and the articulated lorry was going to be the industry standard to accommodate the 32ton GVW. So the designers and engineers at all the lorry manufacturers sat down and came up with a plan to take them into the next chapter.

More power would be needed, so most of them uprated their current engines, but AEC, Bedford and Ford decided on a different approach. AEC, as some of you may know, designed a V8, Bedford and Ford however decided to use their current engines and place two side by side, thereby doubling the available power. Predictably the Bedford and Ford concepts were not well received and the idea was consigned to the bin, where it belonged.

AEC with their V8 were onto something though, the design parameters of fitting the engine under the new Ergomatic cab meant that an oversquare design would be necessary, round holes require round pegs after all and a design was settled upon. During field trials with selected customers, shortcomings were found, quite serious ones that required major changes to the cooling system being the most apparent. This meant a big reengineering job, but the powers that be decided to put the project on hold.

Then things changed, put it into production came the message from above and they did, with the expected results, it failed. Now they could have done things differently, using a different cab mounted higher on the chassis would have allowed for a less compact engine, eliminating the need for a short stroke, but they had to use the Ergomatic cab, so that was out.

They could have bought in the 8V71 from Detroit Diesels, but they were designers and engineers, not assemblers, so that was out, it would also require extensive modification to the floorpan of the Ergomatic cab to accommodate too, so it was never a viable option. Customer acceptance would also be an issue as the Foden and Rootes Group two stroke engines were not the best selling engines on the market and importantly, the unions needed to be kept happy, laying off most of the staff in the engine manufacturing departments would have not been an action without consequences.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[carryfast]

ERF:

[zb]
anorak:
…the engineering feast that was the late 1960s did not have to end in failure. The AEC V8 was not a million miles from being counted among the greats.

Very true. But you realise that even just writing those words will unleash another multi-hundred-word stream of diatribe!.

I once had a very interesting conversation with someone fortunate enough to drive a Mandator V8 in revenue earning service, and also commercially operate an 8V71 powered 6x4 Crusader here in the UK, so could give a first hand assessment of both (very different) vehicles from the drivers seat, albeit eight years apart. He didn’t use the word ‘gutless’ once, quite the opposite, but as it contradicts CF’s ‘vast knowledge’ there is little point in writing it up here to have it’s validity questioned and inflict everyone with yet more very boring previously trotted out nonsense!.

How can around 600 lb/ft and 275 hp,if not less,from a 13 litre engine be anything other than gutless at least when compared to the around 800 lb/ft and 300 hp + of the 8v71.Let me guess the AEC was employed hauling lighter loads so that made it seem as powerful as the Crusader.While if anyone is suggesting that the AEC could get near the Crusader,if running at equivalent gross weights,it can only be bs just based on the simple maths.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Don’t lose heart chaps, some really interesting information has surfaced in response to the ramblings from Junction 9.

Now let’s go back 50yrs or so, 32ton was going to be a thing and the articulated lorry was going to be the industry standard to accommodate the 32ton GVW. So the designers and engineers at all the lorry manufacturers sat down and came up with a plan to take them into the next chapter.

More power would be needed, so most of them uprated their current engines, but AEC, Bedford and Ford decided on a different approach. AEC, as some of you may know, designed a V8, Bedford and Ford however decided to use their current engines and place two side by side, thereby doubling the available power. Predictably the Bedford and Ford concepts were not well received and the idea was consigned to the bin, where it belonged.

AEC with their V8 were onto something though, the design parameters of fitting the engine under the new Ergomatic cab meant that an oversquare design would be necessary, round holes require round pegs after all and a design was settled upon. During field trials with selected customers, shortcomings were found, quite serious ones that required major changes to the cooling system being the most apparent. This meant a big reengineering job, but the powers that be decided to put the project on hold.

Then things changed, put it into production came the message from above and they did, with the expected results, it failed. Now they could have done things differently, using a different cab mounted higher on the chassis would have allowed for a less compact engine, eliminating the need for a short stroke, but they had to use the Ergomatic cab, so that was out.

They could have bought in the 8V71 from Detroit Diesels, but they were designers and engineers, not assemblers, so that was out, it would also require extensive modification to the floorpan of the Ergomatic cab to accommodate too, so it was never a viable option. Customer acceptance would also be an issue as the Foden and Rootes Group two stroke engines were not the best selling engines on the market and importantly, the unions needed to be kept happy, laying off most of the staff in the engine manufacturing departments would have not been an action without consequences.

Putting to one side the idea of handing the job over to Scammell in the form of a 4x2 8v71 Crusader.

They’ve got the 3 VTG and its nice smart big Pete knock off cab sitting there doing nothing.They’ve got the proven wet liner 690 engine architecture which can be used in the V8 configuration.We know the thing is capable of putting out around 51 lb/ft per litre and around 190 hp in NA form and more turbocharged up to around 250 hp all that in just 6 cylinder form.Might as well derate it to around 240 NA and 290 turbocharged respectively because the customers don’t want/need more yet.The thing will be bullet proof and produce more power than the 8LXB at even less rpm and use less fuel than either the 8v71 or the Scania and the drivers will all want to drive it.What’s not to like.

[gingerfold]

For a few days I have been pondering why the Detroit 8v71 would have been the choice of Scammell for one of its Crusader models. Think about it clearly for a minute or. This engine was virtually unknown in the UK. So I have done some digging and lo and behold… neither anyone at Scammell nor for that matter anyone at Leyland chose to use this engine. The decision to use the Detroit 8v71 came from a completely different organisation. Let’s see if CF can find out who made the decision and why… it actually gives a bit of credence to his conspiracy theory.

[erf]

These are from CM November 14th 1969 and quite interesting.

The quoted torque output of the AEC V8 was printed incorrectly in the article, but I have put a correction on the page.

It is very true what Mr Wilding was saying here though, what on earth possessed Scammell to fit the Fuller 610 gearbox behind an AEC AV801 V8 in the Crusader Kelvin Hall show vehicle I cannot imagine.
I can however imagine the guys from Eaton breaking a cold sweat at the show when they saw it!.

Double click to enlarge.

[zb_anorak]

Very interesting article.

1. Look at the crappy turbo installations on the non-Leyland exhibits. Every other maker in the world could fit the blower and its plumbing under a day cab and still leave a low engine cover inside.
2. ■■■■■■■ Custom Torque engines are in the Guy and Atkinson. I wonder why they were not more popular? Maybe the high torque, low speed principle became associated with 44 tons and, when that died, the engineering ideas became saddled with obsolescence.
3. The writer actually expresses doubt that the AEC, with its 272bhp@2600rpm, would keep up, obviously ignoring the role of the gearbox and final drive. That power output is more performance than 252bhp at 1800rpm- just use the appropriate gear.

[carryfast]

gingerfold:
For a few days I have been pondering why the Detroit 8v71 would have been the choice of Scammell for one of its Crusader models. Think about it clearly for a minute or. This engine was virtually unknown in the UK. So I have done some digging and lo and behold… neither anyone at Scammell nor for that matter anyone at Leyland chose to use this engine. The decision to use the Detroit 8v71 came from a completely different organisation. Let’s see if CF can find out who made the decision and why… it actually gives a bit of credence to his conspiracy theory.

Is that bombshell saying that it was an outside party from Leyland Group forced the use of the Detroit over the AEC ?.

While if anyone was out to sabotage the firm they couldn’t have chosen two better designs than the AEC V8 and Leyland 500 to do it not the Detroit.Which obviously clears Stokes but as I’ve said implicates ( Albert ) Fogg up to his neck.

As for the Detroit not being heard of here that would have meant me being on the dole when I left school and most of those who I worked with well before that at least.So I can’t give it more thanks than that.

[carryfast]

ERF:
These are from CM November 14th 1969 and quite interesting.

The quoted torque output of the AEC V8 was printed incorrectly in the article, but I have put a correction on the page.

It is very true what Mr Wilding was saying here though, what on earth possessed Scammell to fit the Fuller 610 gearbox behind an AEC AV801 V8 in the Crusader Kelvin Hall show vehicle I cannot imagine.
I can however imagine the guys from Eaton breaking a cold sweat at the show when they saw it!.

Double click to enlarge.

2
1
0

Not to mention the ‘reservations’ expressed regarding the AEC’s pathetic torque output running at 40t + gross being a bleedin understatement regardless of the obvious typing mistake. While Scammell were having a laugh and taking the ■■■■ at AEC’s expense in saying that the 610 would be enough to cater for the torqueless screamer and as much as it deserves.On that note maybe their dyno figures for it showed closer to the ‘other’ ( real ) 580 lb/ft rating than AEC’s possibly let’s say inflated 630 and Eaton’s tech rep was invited to see it.

While the article also blows apart the argument that Fuller transmissions were unheard of here in the day.

I can imagine that article did wonders for Scammell’s 8v71 Crusader sales v AEC V8.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
2. ■■■■■■■ Custom Torque engines are in the Guy and Atkinson. I wonder why they were not more popular? Maybe the high torque, low speed principle became associated with 44 tons and, when that died, the engineering ideas became saddled with obsolescence.
3. The writer actually expresses doubt that the AEC, with its 272bhp@2600rpm, would keep up, obviously ignoring the role of the gearbox and final drive. That power output is more performance than 252bhp at 1800rpm- just use the appropriate gear.

The idea of torque being king not engine speed and peak power output didn’t die it just got drowned out for a while by people with Fogg’s ideas. While by your logic the Cosworth DFV with a CVT transmission would have been the default choice to pull a 40t truck not a 350 hp Scania V8.Just think of the payload and fuel consumption ‘advantages’ provided by the small high revving F1 engine v the 14 litre Scania.Oh wait.

[zb_anorak]

It must be my turn soon…

Edit- missed the post immediately above. Must have ignored it in error:-).

[skane]

Here may be some food for thought , I have recently read a peice in the Sept 20th 1968 Commercial motor , that a v8 ■■■■■■■ was a standard engine and the v8-71 was an option? Can any body shed some light ?

[carryfast]

skane:
Here may be some food for thought , I have recently read a peice in the Sept 20th 1968 Commercial motor , that a v8 ■■■■■■■ was a standard engine and the v8-71 was an option? Can any body shed some light ?

Scammell at least inherited some familiarity with the ■■■■■■■ 903 in Thornycroft special types.So wouldn’t be surprised if they went with that as standard fit before deciding that the 8v71 was the more practical option between the two so then dropped the ■■■■■■■ ?.More questions for gingerfold.

[frankydobo]

Mmm, not sure about this as I’ve read sources that say the Rolls Royce engine was the standard fitted for the 6x4 Crusader as most of these first went to the military, the 4x2 Crusader came a little later but both chassis were offered with various engine, drivetrain options as you would expect. Maybe the ■■■■■■■ V8 was an early drop out as customers preferred the other choices, by 1969 UK users were familiar with the ■■■■■■■ V8 good and bad but not so much the Detroit, would they chose that one over the other! Commercial Motor has got these things wrong in the past possibly they got the two engines confused in this write up, I haven’t read anywhere else about the ■■■■■■■ being the standard fit. Franky.

[erf]

Carryfast:

ERF:
These are from CM November 14th 1969 and quite interesting.

The quoted torque output of the AEC V8 was printed incorrectly in the article, but I have put a correction on the page.

It is very true what Mr Wilding was saying here though, what on earth possessed Scammell to fit the Fuller 610 gearbox behind an AEC AV801 V8 in the Crusader Kelvin Hall show vehicle I cannot imagine.
I can however imagine the guys from Eaton breaking a cold sweat at the show when they saw it!.

Not to mention the ‘reservations’ expressed regarding the AEC’s pathetic torque output running at 40t + gross being a bleedin understatement regardless of the obvious typing mistake. While Scammell were having a laugh and taking the ■■■■ at AEC’s expense in saying that the 610 would be enough to cater for the torqueless screamer and as much as it deserves.On that note maybe their dyno figures for it showed closer to the ‘other’ ( real ) 580 lb/ft rating than AEC’s possibly let’s say inflated 630 and Eaton’s tech rep was invited to see it.

While the article also blows apart the argument that Fuller transmissions were unheard of here in the day.

I can imagine that article did wonders for Scammell’s 8v71 Crusader sales v AEC V8.

And you wonder why your ‘input’ gets continually dismissed as nonsense!.
I’d get back to the colouring books CF, if I were you!.

Nobody, not a single informed contributor on this thread, has said that Fuller transmissions were unheard of here ‘in the day’. You alone have continually laboured a non existent point about Fuller.

Your previously posted childishly simplistic assessment of the situation regarding proposed Fuller Transmission supply to AEC production in 1968 needing ‘no more than a phone call’ just highlights your comprehensive lack of understanding regarding commercial vehicle markets and manufacture in Great Britain in the 1960’s.

Regarding the article, this was November 1969, and the Fuller 910 and 915 transmissions were already established and had been in UK production for months (and so were becoming viable for volume vehicle production), but then you would already know that if you had actually read the previous information posted here.

[erf-ngc-european]

Carryfast:
While the article also blows apart the argument that Fuller transmissions were unheard of here in the day.

Carryfast:
Do read the posts, CF. ‘ERF’ stated quite clearly on Feb 8th and again on Feb 10th that the RT/RTO510 which became the 610 were available here in 1968, but that they were the ONLY Fuller available. No one said anything about them being unheard of. You’re making all this up as you go along! Robert

EDIT Ha! I see ‘ERF’ has beaten my to it! lol

[carryfast]

ERF:
Your previously posted childishly simplistic assessment of the situation regarding proposed Fuller Transmission supply to AEC production in 1968 needing ‘no more than a phone call’ just highlights your comprehensive lack of understanding regarding commercial vehicle markets and manufacture in Great Britain in the 1960’s.

Regarding the article, this was November 1969, and the Fuller 910 and 915 transmissions were already established and had been in UK production for months (and so were becoming viable for volume vehicle production), but then you would already know that if you had actually read the previous information posted here.

The fact that fuller transmissions were ‘‘already established by 1969’’ stops a 690 based 130 x 142 V8 powered,13 speed fuller equipped,3 VTG,ready for production before the Scania 140,with the Fuller sourcing needing nothing more than a phone call to Fuller and payment,how ?.

[erf]

Scammell Crusader launch article, again by Mr Wilding of CM.
13th September 1968.
Obviously at this earlier stage the proposed AEC V8 engine for the Scammell was the AV740.

[frankydobo]

It seems Scammell had the same idea as GUY with their Big J to introduce a low floor cab hence the V engines as first choice. They may have catered for the military separately by fitting Rolls as it was the engine they preferred as in later procurements. Seems by the above though the ■■■■■■■ and GM were initially intended for export models at higher weights. Franky.

[erf]

CM 3rd July 1970.
The AEC Mandator V8 had already been withdrawn from sale, but…

[erf]

ERF-NGC-European:

Carryfast:
While the article also blows apart the argument that Fuller transmissions were unheard of here in the day.

Do read the posts, CF. ‘ERF’ stated quite clearly on Feb 8th and again on Feb 10th that the RT/RTO510 which became the 610 were available here in 1968, but that they were the ONLY Fuller available. No one said anything about them being unheard of. You’re making all this up as you go along! Robert

EDIT Ha! I see ‘ERF’ has beaten my to it! lol

Great minds Robert…!

I actually said that the 610 was the first Fuller in UK production, making it the only Fuller viable and available for volume vehicle production here in 1968.
The fact that ERF, Atkinson and Scammell had all taken delivery of a handful of 910 and 915 gearboxes by 1968 is irrelevant to all but CF. The total number of Fuller gearboxes supplied by ENV and fitted by ERF between 1964 and 1968 was less than two weeks of AEC goods vehicle production!.