newmercman:
It wasn’t posted! The post was, unsurprisingly, off topic and a waste of time, so it was deleted.
Sorry nmm I thought it explained coomsey’s questions perfectly regarding the difference between the two design approaches and resulting inherent flaws and predictable results in the AEC approach.
railstaff:
[Good god that is one serious workforce.I cant imagine that amount of people in one place/places.
A full Wembley Stadium hold about 85,000
newmercman:
Carryfast:
coomsey:
In the mid 70s Les a mechanic said to me that if a diesel engine could do more than 2100 rpm it would eventually destroy itself. Is that nonsense? I ask cos the V8 n the 500 ,of which I had 3 of, would be in the frame. Cheers PaulProbably more along the lines if it’s designed to ‘need’ to run those sort of engine speeds on a regular basis to do any useful work,combined with the lack of leverage at the crank,then it will inevitably self destruct before its time and before a good lugger like the Scania V8 will.As shown perfectly in that ice cold in Alex starting handle v steam engine analogy previously posted.
It wasn’t posted! The post was, unsurprisingly, off topic and a waste of time, so it was deleted.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Bravo!
Now to the other 999 posts… 
An excellent hypothetical post above ‘gingerfold’!
Full of reasoned thinking.
Fascinating reading - thank you.
I’ll make sure that’s your last ‘hospital pass’…for this week!
ERF:
An excellent hypothetical post above ‘gingerfold’!
Full of reasoned thinking.
Fascinating reading - thank you.I’ll make sure that’s your last ‘hospital pass’…for this week!
Mmm interesting. Was there never a possibility of the lorry bus side breaking out on their own?
ERF:
coomsey:
I appreciate that ERF. So if the designers had not been overruled and the normal proving process had been followed do you believe they would have had a decent engine? If so would they have had a ground breaking success on their hands? N more importantly would it have saved BL? Difficult questions to answer but intriguing for me. Cheers PaulI know the AEC V8 engine inside out, and not only do I believe that Paul, but people who have spent their entire professional life developing Diesel engines believe it was so very close to being a success too. A missed opportunity if ever there was one.
If it had been developed properly, and the subsequent turbo charging applied to it, AEC’s plan of using the engine right through the 1970’s and beyond would have been realised. No question about that.
As to your other question, I don’t really feel qualified to speculate - perhaps ‘gingerfold’ will give us his hypothetical thoughts on a Leyland Truck & Bus operation WITH a successful AEC V8 on their hands, and how that could have panned out for the group?.
Bet you can’t believe I’ve read this topic from start to now ERF with some of the questions I ask but it’s difficult to sort the chiff from the chaff especially when I don’t understand the technical bits. To the point that if I’d only read CF posts I’d have took it as Gospel n couldn’t argue against him.
So a decently designed engine not an off the wall concept. Let down by poor management decisions, although management might well dispute that, circumstances being what they were at BL. Yes?
And finally, you’ll be glad to know, was the V8 ever sorted by anyone ,was that design the basis for a competitors engine. Thanks again Paul
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
An engineer in the MD’s chair will engineer the firm’s future. A salesman…Isn’t this the same ‘salesman’ that went through an engineering apprenticeship at Leyland and who was then given a leadership role over REME field engineering operations v his German counterparts in time of war ?.While wasn’t it Fogg and Roberts who were the two most vocal and enthusiastic supporters of the AEC V8 project ?.
We have been down this route before. You can’t expect a man who can oil a rifle to design one. British Leyland, from some date in the 1970s, required academic qualifications in its engineering staff. It had learned, from bitter experience, that you need people who can do maths in senior positions.
coomsey:
Bet you can’t believe I’ve read this topic from start to now ERF with some of the questions I ask but it’s difficult to sort the chiff from the chaff especially when I don’t understand the technical bits. To the point that if I’d only read CF posts I’d have took it as Gospel n couldn’t argue against him.
So a decently designed engine not an off the wall concept. Let down by poor management decisions, although management might well dispute that, circumstances being what they were at BL. Yes?
And finally, you’ll be glad to know, was the V8 ever sorted by anyone ,was that design the basis for a competitors engine. Thanks again Paul
I’m always happy to help with questions where I can Paul, as are many others here.
Looking back in retrospect, if AEC had spent another year to 18 months, and a load more money on the development of their V8 engine, and waited until 1970 to launch it, I am confident that it would have been a complete success for the Leyland group. It was far too early in it’s development to launch as a production engine.
As far as we know, AEC themselves had sorted the design by 1971 ready for a re-launch, but as ‘gingerfold’ has said, the plug was finally pulled on the grounds of excessive noise of all things. I’m with his thinking here though. I have stood next to many many Diesel engines on test in my time, and certainly the AV740 V8 engine is no more noisy than say a Volvo TD120 with its similar capacity. I would think the real reason was perhaps one of the engine’s burned reputation, something even re-launching a new successful V8 engine would struggle to overcome.
The basis for a competitors engine? No. But many did get useful information at AEC’s expense.
What I struggle to understand is why the Americans were so far in front of us in terms of engine development. I know they had a much larger market, so more profits to reinvest, but they were leagues ahead of us, the Mack based V8 from Scania was in production for nearly 30yrs without changes to the basic design, intercooling and EDC being the only notable changes and they eventually gave it 530hp from the original 335hp and that Svempa bloke had 1200hp out of admittedly highly tuned versions, all from a 1960s Mack design.
Their inline sixes were pretty ■■■■ good too, almost everything pre ISX from ■■■■■■■■ the Series 60 and the big yellow powerhouses that are my personal favourite. Even Daimler AG chose the current DD range as their world engine platform and Mercedes-Benz made some bloody good engines themselves, yet the yanks got the job.
What made us so far behind?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
I would echo the statement that noise alone would not kill off the engine. There were plenty of bigger bore engines about, plenty of 2500rpm+ motorrs around Europe.
To survive, a relaunched engine would have to be more than reliable-every fault would be noticed and remembered. I think this is why Leyland pulled.the plug. They reckoned a turbo 760 would be the best way to put a bit of polish back on the firm’s reputation, and they were not wrong…
ERF:
coomsey:
Bet you can’t believe I’ve read this topic from start to now ERF with some of the questions I ask but it’s difficult to sort the chiff from the chaff especially when I don’t understand the technical bits. To the point that if I’d only read CF posts I’d have took it as Gospel n couldn’t argue against him.
So a decently designed engine not an off the wall concept. Let down by poor management decisions, although management might well dispute that, circumstances being what they were at BL. Yes?
And finally, you’ll be glad to know, was the V8 ever sorted by anyone ,was that design the basis for a competitors engine. Thanks again PaulI’m always happy to help with questions where I can Paul, as are many others here.
Looking back in retrospect, if AEC had spent another year to 18 months, and a load more money on the development of their V8 engine, and waited until 1970 to launch it, I am confident that it would have been a complete success for the Leyland group. It was far too early in it’s development to launch as a production engine.
As far as we know, AEC themselves had sorted the design by 1971 ready for a re-launch, but as ‘gingerfold’ has said, the plug was finally pulled on the grounds of excessive noise of all things. I’m with his thinking here though. I have stood next to many many Diesel engines on test in my time, and certainly the AV740 V8 engine is no more noisy than say a Volvo TD120 with its similar capacity. I would think the real reason was perhaps one of the engine’s burned reputation, something even re-launching a new successful V8 engine would struggle to overcome.
The basis for a competitors engine? No. But many did get useful information at AEC’s expense.
Thanks for all that, its helped a lot. I find this marvellous topic even though it can be a little challenging at times, n, dare I say it, even CFs comments make for an interesting debate. It appears to be very frustrating for you guys but highly entertaining for me at least, but then it would be cos I’m not in the firing line. Cheers Paul
newmercman:
What I struggle to understand is why the Americans were so far in front of us in terms of engine development. I know they had a much larger market, so more profits to reinvest, but they were leagues ahead of us, the Mack based V8 from Scania was in production for nearly 30yrs without changes to the basic design, intercooling and EDC being the only notable changes and they eventually gave it 530hp from the original 335hp and that Svempa bloke had 1200hp out of admittedly highly tuned versions, all from a 1960s Mack design.Their inline sixes were pretty ■■■■ good too, almost everything pre ISX from ■■■■■■■■ the Series 60 and the big yellow powerhouses that are my personal favourite. Even Daimler AG chose the current DD range as their world engine platform and Mercedes-Benz made some bloody good engines themselves, yet the yanks got the job.
What made us so far behind?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
A good question and probably not one definitive answer. Being simplistic then I think that the dimensions of British engine designs must have been a factor. And I’m not talking about piston stroke and cylinder bore dimensions. It’s the old historical factors of trying to design the lightest possible lorry to carry the maximum weight under restrictive C&U Regs that dominated designers’ thinking for many years. You’ve hit the nail on the head with your reference to “big yellow powerhouses”. Look at a say, 12 litre capacity Yankee diesel engine side by side with a 12 litre British or European engine, the Yank is bigger. So, a bigger block, bigger cylinder heads. Would that not allow larger coolant passages in the engine for better reliability? Cooling issues were the Achilles heels of several British designs. The design brief of the AEC V8 encapsulates the thinking: - a lightweight, compact engine was demanded. The only British engine that looked bigger than its output was the Gardner, and weight saving with Gardner was achieved by extensive use of aluminium alloys. I think that pre-WW2, and cav551 will either confirm or otherwise, both Leyland and AEC also made use of aluminium alloy in some of their engines, but it wasn’t continued by them post-war. The designers in the USA probably weren’t restricted to the same extent by worrying about weight as their British counterparts. The 1960s and '70s major users of ■■■■■■■ engines, notably Atkinson and ERF, compensated for the heavier weight of the engine by using lighter cabs with non-steel panels.
newmercman:
What I struggle to understand is why the Americans were so far in front of us in terms of engine development. I know they had a much larger market, so more profits to reinvest, but they were leagues ahead of us, the Mack based V8 from Scania was in production for nearly 30yrs without changes to the basic design, intercooling and EDC being the only notable changes and they eventually gave it 530hp from the original 335hp and that Svempa bloke had 1200hp out of admittedly highly tuned versions, all from a 1960s Mack design.Their inline sixes were pretty ■■■■ good too, almost everything pre ISX from ■■■■■■■■ the Series 60 and the big yellow powerhouses that are my personal favourite. Even Daimler AG chose the current DD range as their world engine platform and Mercedes-Benz made some bloody good engines themselves, yet the yanks got the job.
What made us so far behind?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Just following on from ‘gingerfold’s reply, looking firmly at the early to mid 1960’s, were they really leagues ahead of us?.
Personally I don’t think so.
In terms of large capacity high speed automotive Diesels, including V8’s, necessity is the mother of invention as they say. Pre motorway Britain didn’t need a V8 Diesel in a lorry, where the Americans did. We needed reliable and efficient lugging engines to haul goods up and down our A’ roads, and I think our British designs covered that sector exceptionally well personally.
It was when our needs changed, and we had to realign our engine design thinking that perhaps we appeared ‘behind’, but then America had a huge head-start in that field.
Just stepping outside of the automotive engine field for a second, the big British Diesel’s were right at the cutting edge of engine technology, and at the very top of their market for decades.
I think that the UK makers designed engines and vehicles to cater for whatever the UK needed at that particular moment in time without (A) looking too far into the future and (B) without expecting operators to move away from well proven designs as unknown machinery could cost them money? It must have been quite a risk when the first Volvo’s were purchased by British hauliers and to be honest it was only lack of supply from UK makers that forced their hand really. When they did plan for ‘possible legislation in the future’ (ie 44 tonnes gross running) we had units with chassis like quarry dumpers, way over the top and very few operators wanted them as they were too blooming heavy for starters!. The USA truckers did more mileage in a day than many of our lads did in a week so needed something special. I remember when tachos came in and an FTA chap gave us a talk on using them. One driver asked how it worked when nighting out; “Nighting out, you can cover Britain in a day so why would you night out?” was the (slightly tongue in cheek) answer! 
Different horses for different courses I reckon?
Probably a load of rubbish I have just posted but that is how I see it?
Pete.
Yes the Americans did have a better road network, the interstate system was started just after WW2, to facilitate fast response times from military bases being its original goal, but it wasn’t completed and traffic volumes were light, the number of trucks running coast to coast or similar were very few, greater distances than the UK for sure, but not as much as you would think, at least until the 70s.
They were also governed by weight, having a GVW of 72,500lbs or 32.8 imperial tons and they had the weight penalty of a double drive configuration. The industry was also highly regulated, similar to our A licence system, many trucks only had one way authorisation, meaning they couldn’t back load, mechanical handling for unloading was also in its infancy, so it wasn’t all that different from the UK in terms of workload on the engines.
I know we have had some brilliant engineers in Britain and led the way in many fields, but engines do appear to be an Achilles heel, from motorbikes to lorries, the Americans, Europeans andJapanese had more efficient and more reliable engines than we did and that all started in the 1960s.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
[zb]
anorak:
We have been down this route before. You can’t expect a man who can oil a rifle to design one. British Leyland, from some date in the 1970s, required academic qualifications in its engineering staff. It had learned, from bitter experience, that you need people who can do maths in senior positions.
Blimey so rifles had to be taken to REME field workshops for oiling and cleaning. 
Although I’d agree with you that a mechanical engineering apprenticeship probably won’t qualify anyone as a design engineer.Which is why the firm employed… design engineers like Roberts and Fogg who as we’ve seen applied limited formula racing car design principles to truck engines. 
In which case no one can blame Stokes,regarding the question of who was responsible for calculating the relevant stress figures,imposed on the piston to crank component chain,in the case of comparing the AEC’s 114 mm stroke ( leverage ) with that of the Scania’s 140 mm,at anything like the required torque outputs.Or for that matter also the thermal stress levels in the case of the stupid idea of trading leverage for more engine speed.Let alone trying to combine both ideas in the form of turbocharging the AEC screamer.That’ll work.
While it doesn’t take a degree to know that the analogy of the steamer v starting handle example applies in this case.Or even at best an understanding of the effects on SFC of running a 13 litre diesel at up to 2,600 rpm to get any useful work out of it.
I’ve mentioned on TN before that I drove Terex dumptrucks with D D engines at least 25yr old. God knows how many mls /hrs they’d done. We were working them 16hrs a day for 5yr n never heard of one blowing an engine. A 9yr old Cat I had popped a piston very unusual. Not sure that is relevant to road motors but says a bit about their design. Cheers Paul
coomsey:
I’ve mentioned on TN before that I drove Terex dumptrucks with D D engines at least 25yr old. God knows how many mls /hrs they’d done. We were working them 16hrs a day for 5yr n never heard of one blowing an engine. Cheers Paul
Go back to the starting handle analogy.Then realise that the con rod has to apply enough shove on the crank to compensate for the next one being an induction stroke.Unlike in the case of the two stroke.Let alone the two stroke also having more leverage at the crank than the AEC.IE the Detroit two stroke was probably effectively less stressed than the Gardner.
Carryfast, please quit with the stroke comparisons, you’ve been saying the same thing for the past couple of weeks now, I think it’s safe to assume that we get your point.
Your true colours are starting to show now, I agreed with you a few posts back and got no response from you, no quote, no YouTube video, I’ve just given you plenty of material with my post singing the praises off the American diesel engines and nothing from you in response.
By definition this means you only quote and post to spew your vitriol and that is called trolling. Your opinion is welcome, but if you’re just going to keep on and on about the same thing in every post, you should rethink your tactics.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Mark, what is the basis of US haulage rates calculations? Are there job rates irrespective of payload, or is payload a factor in the rate? Obviously distance is a vital factor in any rates calculation, but now in the UK more and more non-bulk haulage jobs are on either a pallet quantity, or more commonly, a job rate.