Hey CF, don’t know what you exactly mean with both good things , You can not compare an NTC with an 141
but with an 140. Only Scania could manage it to keep relative torque at relative low revs with it’s turbo for the 140.
But even at that point much less and at a higher revs as the NTC.
A 6 in line is Always better as a V engine, and the more oversquare desto worse the efficience.
V engines came only beter and beter with turbo’s and aftercoolers, but today all have nearly gone.
And in fact nearly all manufactures gave a choice of 2 or 3 ratio’s, between which you could choice which you wanted.
Only the Sweeds fastest were still very slow with 4.71 and 4.88/4.92 for Volvo. And that stayed so till '77 by Scania, but Volvo had an overdrive from '69 on, which meaned that in heavy conditions you could still drive in direct gear at about 80/90kph, which you couldn’t with Scania’s.
For me the best solution was and still is, if you buy a marque you have the choise of different engine marques, gearboxes and driveaxles; Which pitty didn’t work here on the continent.
Carryfast:
If I’ve got it right U v H shift pattern denotes RTO v RT ?.While top always remains direct in the case of RT regardless ?.
Don’t think so. At least 2 versions of the direct-top RT seem to have had the ‘U’-shift and ‘H’-shift respectively. Robert
When comparing the two versions of the same gearbox, say the 9509, Carryfast is entirely correct.
If you are comparing the 9509 with a different gearbox, say the 9515, then Robert is correct.
As I said on the other thread about gearboxes, these were standard ‘off the peg’ transmissions in every way, with A, B, C etc versions of both RT and RTO’s offering differing gear ratios. There were never two versions of the same model gearbox produced with different gate patterns. The gate of the RTO 9 speed was changed to a normal H gate with the introduction of the (overdrive only) ‘New Generation’ RTX in 1981. Although the 11609 version of the RTX gearbox featured better gear meshing which increased its torque capacity, the RT and RTO 11609 versions featured exactly the same design of gears (in the case of the RTO-A vs RTX-A, exactly the same gears), but only the RTX had the linkage inside to cross-over 3rd and 4th gate position with ‘overdrive top’.
We are still rebuilding and modifying these Fuller gearboxes today for use in our own ERF’s, Leyland’s, Foden’s etc with parts now coming direct from the USA and Australia where they are still plentiful. We have a lot of info on them, including the original parts & service manuals and comparison info.
Many thanks for coming to the rescue with that excellent clarification, ‘ERF’. I was leading CF up the garden path there, then. Pat Kennett’s 1975 Euro Test description of a modernised RT 9509 'box as an H-shift has misled me into thinking that he actually meant ‘H’-shift: clearly, he really meant H-pattern, not H-shift. That would fit with all the 9-sp Fullers I used from that period, all of which had the U-shift.
Cheers! Robert
Hey Robert, I didn’t have seen here much U shift patterns against the H,which is the easiest of course.
But why the U pattern ■■? had it advantages ■■?
tiptop495:
Many thanks for coming to the rescue with that excellent clarification, ‘ERF’. I was leading CF up the garden path there, then. Pat Kennett’s 1975 Euro Test description of a modernised RT 9509 'box as an H-shift has misled me into thinking that he actually meant ‘H’-shift: clearly, he really meant H-pattern, not H-shift. That would fit with all the 9-sp Fullers I used from that period, all of which had the U-shift.
Cheers! Robert
Hey Robert, I didn’t have seen here much U shift patterns against the H,which is the easiest of course.
But why the U pattern ■■? had it advantages ■■?
Eric,
[/quote]
It was just the way it was designed, Eric. Someone on here will gives us the engineering reason. I suspect it was more convenient to keep the construction simple, as it was such a good indestructible 'box! It had no advantages for the driver at all, that I could see. If you drove one everyday you very soon got used to it and it wasn’t a problem; but if you were jumping in and out of other lorries with a mixture of H-shift, U-shift, back-to-front H-shift and back-to-front U-shift (like I was) it could get a bit irritating! Here’s a U-shift diagram. Robert
robert1952:
…Pat Kennett’s 1975 Euro Test description of a modernised RT 9509 'box as an H-shift has misled me into thinking that he actually meant ‘H’-shift: clearly, he really meant H-pattern, not H-shift. That would fit with all the 9-sp Fullers I used from that period, all of which had the U-shift.
What I should be saying, then, is:
The standard fitment was a Fuller RT9509 or RT9509A (slightly different ratios), both of which had an H-pattern gate with a U-pattern shift.
Cheers! Robert
Not quite - but it could be the way you are interpreting H and U!.
The RT (and RTX) nine-speed always had what I would call a standard H gate, with standard H pattern shift. The RTO had the H gate with U pattern shift, i.e. with 3rd and 4th in opposite places on the gate.
To answer the other question above, is perhaps easier to think of it like this - all nine-speed Fullers have a ‘direct drive’ position - i.e. The input shaft from the clutch is directly engaged through to the output flange (more accurately the range-change section, but let’s think of it as just a basic four-speed gearbox for now), so both shafts turn at exactly the same speed - prop shaft turns at engine RPM. In the case of the RT, this is selected in the conventional 4th position on the H gate which is top gear. 1st, 2nd and 3rd ratios all build up to 4th.
In the case of the RTO, 1st and 2nd are different ratio gears, but in the same place inside the gearbox (and on the H gate), but 3rd now needs to be the direct drive through the gearbox, so on the H gate that is now where 4th was. The overdrive 4th uses the gear positions on the mainshaft inside the box previously used by 3rd, but the gears are much different in terms of ratio of course. When this position is selected, the output shaft turns faster than the clutch input, so the prop shaft is now turning faster than engine RPM.
I hope this makes sense!.
Pat Kennett - as much as we all very much respected him, one or two things he went to print with were not 100% accurate, but considering his vast output, that is only really to be expected.
Don,t quite understand the technical stuff but my neck of the woods(leic,s) H had,nt a name n U were wrap round boxes. I ,ve driven both n much prefer wrap round but not dead sure why cos I loved Foden 12 which were H. Wrap round Foden 12 my heaven ?
robert1952:
…Pat Kennett’s 1975 Euro Test description of a modernised RT 9509 'box as an H-shift has misled me into thinking that he actually meant ‘H’-shift: clearly, he really meant H-pattern, not H-shift. That would fit with all the 9-sp Fullers I used from that period, all of which had the U-shift.
What I should be saying, then, is:
The standard fitment was a Fuller RT9509 or RT9509A (slightly different ratios), both of which had an H-pattern gate with a U-pattern shift.
Cheers! Robert
Not quite - but it could be the way you are interpreting H and U!.
The RT (and RTX) nine-speed always had what I would call a standard H gate, with standard H pattern shift. The RTO had the H gate with U pattern shift, i.e. with 3rd and 4th in opposite places on the gate.
To answer the other question above, is perhaps easier to think of it like this - all nine-speed Fullers have a ‘direct drive’ position - i.e. The input shaft from the clutch is directly engaged through to the output flange (more accurately the range-change section, but let’s think of it as just a basic four-speed gearbox for now), so both shafts turn at exactly the same speed - prop shaft turns at engine RPM. In the case of the RT, this is selected in the conventional 4th position on the H gate which is top gear. 1st, 2nd and 3rd ratios all build up to 4th.
In the case of the RTO, 1st and 2nd are different ratio gears, but in the same place inside the gearbox (and on the H gate), but 3rd now needs to be the direct drive through the gearbox, so on the H gate that is now where 4th was. The overdrive 4th uses the gear positions on the mainshaft inside the box previously used by 3rd, but the gears are much different in terms of ratio of course. When this position is selected, the output shaft turns faster than the clutch input, so the prop shaft is now turning faster than engine RPM.
I hope this makes sense!.
Pat Kennett - as much as we all very much respected him, one or two things he went to print with were not 100% accurate, but considering his vast output, that is only really to be expected.
Fab! Now I’ve got it. Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to explain the mysteries of my favourite g/box! Comforting, too, to know that the NGC had the H-pattern/H-shift after all. I learn lots of things on this forum. Robert
Just for references: depending on which NGC brochure you read, it seems that with the NTC 290 option you could either have the RT9513 or the RTO9513. Robert
robert1952:
Many thanks for coming to the rescue with that excellent clarification, ‘ERF’. I was leading CF up the garden path there, then. Pat Kennett’s 1975 Euro Test description of a modernised RT 9509 'box as an H-shift has misled me into thinking that he actually meant ‘H’-shift: clearly, he really meant H-pattern, not H-shift. That would fit with all the 9-sp Fullers I used from that period, all of which had the U-shift.
What I should be saying, then, is:
The standard fitment was a Fuller RT9509 or RT9509A (slightly different ratios), both of which had an H-pattern gate with a U-pattern shift.
Cheers! Robert
Firstly just to clarify we’re discussing shift ‘pattern’ rather than the the gate.In which case it would be fair to say that U shift ‘pattern’ ‘usually’ denotes RTO transmission not RT and I’d guess it would be very difficult to find an RT direct top box with anything other than an H type shift ‘pattern’ and U shift pattern in the case of RTO.With all the descriptions of the NGC’s box seeming to confirm H shift ‘pattern’ as expected of an RT direct drive top box ?.
robert1952:
A couple of pages back Eric reminded us that this was pretty normal in the '70s and he mentioned that Scanias at that time Scania’s were geared in Belgium to 90 @ 2100rpm (110 or 140) with 4.71 ratio and no overdrive gearbox. He went on to say that even Volvo with the 8 speed box was reving 2200 @ 90 but all drove at 2400/2500 revs. Robert
It’s probably fair to say that most manufacturers and customers were understandably ignorant of the finer points of gearing a big power ( more importantly big torque ) truck properly in the early 1970’s.However it really wasn’t rocket science by the mid 1970’s as to what was needed and probably no excuses for not understanding that sooner rather than later and thereby getting a head start over the opposition and thereby making far more effective use of the advantages of the turbo ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ small cam or big cam the torque characteristics being as close as made no difference in either case.
The comments here,regarding the Scania 141’s revised gearing say it all in that regard.In addition to the well known ‘issues’ regarding the long overdue in getting the gearing right in the case of the ■■■■■■■■
On that note it’s obvious that counting out the use of the RTO Fuller at least in the case of the limited final drive options of the NGC was a stupid move.Which no surprise seems to have been reversed not long after in future models whether Roadranger ‘O’ type.Or the Twin Splitter ‘O’ type even seemingly with Rockwell being more or less ERF’s main axle supplier by that point ?.
As for the NGC they had a perfect opportunity to combine the best aspects of both the 6 cylinder and V8 Scanias ( 6 cylinder simplicity with V8 type torque ) in one truck and effectively blew it in terms of both engine and driveline choice and failure to develop the steel cab model.
Liked that link to the CM archive - very useful! You seem to have moved to a slightly new position here, however. Nobody would deny that the '70s saw a bit of a revolution in the production of drivelines that produced high torque at low revs and gave better and better final drive results. I drove a large range of premium (and not so premium!) tractive units that dated from 1973 onwards, through pretty-well all the stages of that revolution. However, the NGC was conceived very early in the '70s and hit the market in Jan '73. As you say above, there’d have been no excuses for getting it wrong in 1979. But it wasn’t designed in 1979, it was designed in about 1971/2 so it was a product of its time, which does not make it a ‘stupid move’, surely, unless you wish to compare apples with pears. Robert
To be fair we’re actually discussing a vehicle designed ‘for’ the mid/late 1970’s.Hence turbo ■■■■■■■ and around 1,000 lb/ft of torque developed at around if not less than 1,500 rpm.In which case it wasn’t rocket science to realise even at that time that,without the option of a higher final drive than that described,it was a stupid move to use the direct drive Fuller option as opposed to RTO option or at least not upgrade the design at that later point.In this case the RTO being the obvious choice.Bearing in mind that a torque curve meant the same in the early 1970’s as it did in the the mid or late 1970’s.In which case there’s no reason as to why the early mistake shouldn’t have been noticed and rectified by the mid 1970’s and the NGC shouldn’t have been fitted with the RTO box options by the mid 1970’s.Or for that matter fitted with the NTA engine options.Thereby getting ahead of Scania and its 141 when it mattered.
robert1952:
Many thanks for coming to the rescue with that excellent clarification, ‘ERF’. I was leading CF up the garden path there, then. Pat Kennett’s 1975 Euro Test description of a modernised RT 9509 'box as an H-shift has misled me into thinking that he actually meant ‘H’-shift: clearly, he really meant H-pattern, not H-shift. That would fit with all the 9-sp Fullers I used from that period, all of which had the U-shift.
What I should be saying, then, is:
The standard fitment was a Fuller RT9509 or RT9509A (slightly different ratios), both of which had an H-pattern gate with a U-pattern shift.
Cheers! Robert
Firstly just to clarify we’re discussing shift ‘pattern’ rather than the the gate.In which case it would be fair to say that U shift ‘pattern’ ‘usually’ denotes RTO transmission not RT and I’d guess it would be very difficult to find an RT direct top box with anything other than an H type shift ‘pattern’ and U shift pattern in the case of RTO.With all the descriptions of the NGC’s box seeming to confirm H shift ‘pattern’ as expected of an RT direct drive top box ?.
Indeed! There are times when both of us forget to do a ‘rain check’ and make sure that we define terms. You may remember a while ago on the UK Forum we ended up talking past each other for several posts until we realised that we both meant quite different things by ‘block change’, ‘sequential change’ and ‘skip change’ ; but we sorted it all out in the end. In this instance it may be better to talk about ‘boxes in which the 3rd and 4th positions on the H-pattern are reversed’. Or not! Robert
Carryfast:
To be fair we’re actually discussing a vehicle designed ‘for’ the mid/late 1970’s.Hence turbo ■■■■■■■ and around 1,000 lb/ft of torque developed at around if not less than 1,500 rpm.In which case it wasn’t rocket science to realise even at that time that,without the option of a higher final drive than that described,it was a stupid move to use the direct drive Fuller option as opposed to RTO option or at least not upgrade the design at that later point.In this case the RTO being the obvious choice.Bearing in mind that a torque curve meant the same in the early 1970’s as it did in the the mid or late 1970’s.In which case there’s no reason as to why the early mistake shouldn’t have been noticed and rectified by the mid 1970’s and the NGC shouldn’t have been fitted with the RTO box options by the mid 1970’s.Or for that matter fitted with the NTA engine options.Thereby getting ahead of Scania and its 141 when it mattered.
By the mid-'70s ERF knew that the NGC was about to be replaced by the new B-series ‘European’ which was indeed fitted with the RTO 9513 (although you could still have the 9-speed which some of them did), so perhaps they decided not to invest in further development of the NGC. robert
robert1952:
Just for references: depending on which NGC brochure you read, it seems that with the NTC 290 option you could either have the RT9513 or the RTO9513. Robert
It’s like Fawlty Towers.Picture the scene the customer says I want an NTA with an RTO 13 speed box.Sorry we can’t do that but you can have a 290 with an RTO 13 speed.Customer says ok I’ll settle for a 335 with an RTO 13 speed.Sorry we can’t do that either nor even a 9 speed RTO because we’re only supposed to fit direct drive RT anyway.But you said I can have an RTO with 290.Yes we know that but you can’t have it with anything else except a Gardner in which case you won’t want an NGC anyway.
It’s almost as if the chief designer left the office secretary to get on with the mundane things like vehicle specs while he got on with the important tasks like getting to the golf club in the afternoon.
At the end of the day the CUSTOMER did decide what he liked
and (even more important to gain his order what he wanted)
to be accordingly pleased and delivered with, hence also 3MW
and 5MW with even the RT915 with a 1:5.65 or a 1:6.44 ratio.
Carryfast:
To be fair we’re actually discussing a vehicle designed ‘for’ the mid/late 1970’s.Hence turbo ■■■■■■■ and around 1,000 lb/ft of torque developed at around if not less than 1,500 rpm.In which case it wasn’t rocket science to realise even at that time that,without the option of a higher final drive than that described,it was a stupid move to use the direct drive Fuller option as opposed to RTO option or at least not upgrade the design at that later point.In this case the RTO being the obvious choice.Bearing in mind that a torque curve meant the same in the early 1970’s as it did in the the mid or late 1970’s.In which case there’s no reason as to why the early mistake shouldn’t have been noticed and rectified by the mid 1970’s and the NGC shouldn’t have been fitted with the RTO box options by the mid 1970’s.Or for that matter fitted with the NTA engine options.Thereby getting ahead of Scania and its 141 when it mattered.
By the mid-'70s ERF knew that the NGC was about to be replaced by the new B-series ‘European’ which was indeed fitted with the RTO 9513 (although you could still have the 9-speed which some of them did), so perhaps they decided not to invest in further development of the NGC. robert
That sounds like a better explanation.In that firstly the idea that the designer had supposedly moved to a direct drive box only policy was just part of the cover story in which ERF had already decided to make a strategic withdrawal from the Euro market and the NGC.When sadly they again made the wrong call when development of the NGC was the way to go in either case.On that note putting all their eggs in the one B series basket and not doing whatever it took to maintain and develop the NGC just handed over the initiative to people like Scania.I’d imagine in this case much to Scania’s relief when we think what could have been.In the form of a 370-400 NTA 13 speed RTO spec NGC on the market in 1975 thereby taking out both of Scania’s 6 cylinder and V8 111/141 best shots with one 6 cylinder truck.With a new steel cab development replacement on the table and the big cam ■■■■■■■ on the way.
At the end of the day the CUSTOMER did decide what he liked
and (even more important to gain his order what he wanted)
to be accordingly pleased and delivered with, hence also 3MW
and 5MW with even the RT915 with a 1:5.65 or a 1:6.44 ratio.
Good point. It’s possible that the customer’s choice was taken more seriously in Belgium and Holland. For example, Eyckmann’s unit left Sandbach with an RT 9509A but was supplied new by CDB to him with an RT 9513. Another NGC in Belgium was also given a 13-sp box. Perhaps a different culture of customer care kicked in once the unit was over the Channel and in the showroom. Robert
In all fairness…the management-team in Sandbach was more thinking in terms
of “we deliver what we think you’ll need” not aware of other circumstances and
import-type-approval. Eyckmans changed a bit more than their gearbox with a
Hendrickson-bogie fitted. I overheard that the first three-axled 3MW/5MW also
had a Hendrickson-bogie fitted, Lecocq, Delsaert, Hyrdocar etc
Bear in mind that a customer earns his money with the right equipment
in shape with that investment, regardless what the (ERF-)salesforce predicted!
Bestebreurtje, Denonville and Mabo (not very ERF-loyal) did UNDERSTAND that.
At the end of the day the CUSTOMER did decide what he liked
and (even more important to gain his order what he wanted)
to be accordingly pleased and delivered with, hence also 3MW
and 5MW with even the RT915 with a 1:5.65 or a 1:6.44 ratio.
The issue in this case seems to be the fact that the customer didn’t have the option ?,of a driveline which allowed it to run at max required road speed at a reasonably low engine speed,as opposed to maximum engine speed.Bearing in mind a 300 hp + truck with almost 1,000 lb/ft of torque produced at around,if not less than,1,500 rpm.
ERF-Continental:
In all fairness…the management-team in Sandbach was more thinking in terms
of “we deliver what we think you’ll need” not aware of other circumstances and
import-type-approval. Eyckmans changed a bit more than their gearbox with a
Hendrickson-bogie fitted. I overheard that the first three-axled 3MW/5MW also
had a Hendrickson-bogie fitted, Lecocq, Delsaert, Hyrdocar etc
Bear in mind that a customer earns his money with the right equipment
in shape with that investment, regardless what the (ERF-)salesforce predicted!
Bestebreurtje, Denonville and Mabo (not very ERF-loyal) did UNDERSTAND that.
Let’s get this right.ERF being an assembly operation not only counted out use of the RTO fuller options and the NTA ■■■■■■■ options but also refused customer requests for Hendrickson double drive options.When the ability to offer all this should have been expected to be their bread and butter and the definition of an ‘assembler’ and exactly what ‘they’ would/should have been expected to have thought exactly what the customer ‘needed’.
On that note the reference to ‘type approval’ appears in all that which has arisen previously as a question.In which case are ERF being blamed here for something that wasn’t of their making.In which case the situation of customers having to modify vehicles after market with non type approved kit would be the obvious result of that.Not to mention ERF then deciding to withdraw from that market because there was no point in trying to satisfy it.
Here’s a U-shift diagram. Robert
