The AEC v 8 was an engine built before it,s time a great piece of engineering but it was under developed and once british leyland got hold of it it was wasted because they spent no money on it.The engine block was too short so the big ends and mains were to narrow this could have been overcome but the machine tooling was already in place also like the standard mandator the cab was too low the high datum cab on some leyland modles would have curred this, there was nothing on the road in the uk at the time to touch them when they were running right.We had a standard mandator with the bosch fuel system and an eaton gearbox this would go as well as the motors with the rolls or the ■■■■■■■ in.When we got our first scania 110 though after my dad drove it for the first time his comment was, we should have had motors like this years ago. The f89 was12 litre and330 hp the 140 was 350hp and 14 litre were as the aec v8 was12.47 litre and 256 hp if it had been turbo charged though who knows what it would have done.The TL12 was the old av760 which was 226hp but when blowen it developed 278hp but again under developed.
We had some Marshall’s with the 505 engine, not bad apart from eating head gasket’s on a regular basis.
Pete.
windrush:
We had some Marshall’s with the 505 engine, not bad apart from eating head gasket’s on a regular basis.Pete.
They eventually put the 760 downrated in the marshall and it became the marshall major ,wonder what the difference between the marshall major and the mammoth major 6 was , probably power output
T
ramone:
windrush:
We had some Marshall’s with the 505 engine, not bad apart from eating head gasket’s on a regular basis.Pete.
They eventually put the 760 downrated in the marshall and it became the marshall major ,wonder what the difference between the marshall major and the mammoth major 6 was , probably power output
The mammoth major was on a deeper chassis than the marshall , they also built a six wheel tipper with the motor panal cab on ,same as guy and seddon.
Its a great pity that late Jonny Brewster isnt still with us AEC, reckoned that he new more about their engines than they did, Jonny Brewster was agreat person to know, I new him in th 60/70s, He had knowledge stored in his head that was fantastic, He was a genious with any kind of motor, & he accepted everything as a challenge, & if he couldnt fix it, it was tom ducked & that was it. Regards Larry, PS, I wonder if his son is still about, he was a brilliant fellow also.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Its a great pity that late Jonny Brewster isnt still with us AEC, reckoned that he new more about their engines than they did, Jonny Brewster was agreat person to know, I new him in th 60/70s, He had knowledge stored in his head that was fantastic, He was a genious with any kind of motor, & he accepted everything as a challenge, & if he couldnt fix it, it was tom ducked & that was it. Regards Larry, PS, I wonder if his son is still about, he was a brilliant fellow also.
well AEC were tom ducked once leyland got their grubby hands on them
Barry Waddy , we had an old fitter used to do a bit of part time for us ,he worked for a big Bus company well nown ,What he didnt no abount AECs was not worth noing he wore glasess half inch thick ,when he set the tappets i passed him a feeler gauge he looked at me soft whats that for ,just used his fingers she started up sweet as a nut ,I remember helping our fitter rebuild an AEC 7/7 we done the job recon pump & Injectors , it would start then stop we tryed everything a day and half we messed with it ,Norman our fitter said nip down and ask Ray iff he can come and have a look ,i went to see him told him what was happing he laughed and said take the pump back to who recond it tell them to put crank shaft in the right way round ,they did it fired up strait away seemed that the Leyland 600 ,pump was exactley the same but the shaft was the other way round altering the fireing order ,you live and learn just a bit of usless info ,yours Barry
When I first started with A E Evans in 1970 I remember being sent to South Yorkshire Chemicals to load benzole on a MK5 Mammoth Major. It was ex Shell,reg XYP 107 with the AV590 engine and 5-speed box and it performed worse than some of the old MK3s.I think the 590 produced 125 bhp and the old 9.6 the same,but the MK3 with the 6-speed box was far better - maybe a bit noisier though. 
I remember that the MK5 mentioned above was allocated to a long-serving Chesterfield driver and he wasn’t happy,as the next MK5 MM to be allocated after refurb went to a newish driver,this one with the AV690 and 6-speed box.You took what was given at Evans and just got on with it. 
Chris Webb:
When I first started with A E Evans in 1970 I remember being sent to South Yorkshire Chemicals to load benzole on a MK5 Mammoth Major. It was ex Shell,reg XYP 107 with the AV590 engine and 5-speed box and it performed worse than some of the old MK3s.I think the 590 produced 125 bhp and the old 9.6 the same,but the MK3 with the 6-speed box was far better - maybe a bit noisier though.
I remember that the MK5 mentioned above was allocated to a long-serving Chesterfield driver and he wasn’t happy,as the next MK5 MM to be allocated after refurb went to a newish driver,this one with the AV690 and 6-speed box.You took what was given at Evans and just got on with it.
It makes you wonder why they offered a 9.6 with a 5 speed box in the first place Chris , it wouldn`t do their reputation any good ,the 1 that my dad had was pulling a trailer so running at top weight, its just unimaginable these days
ramone:
Thanks for that Frank ,i heard the AV505 was a bit of a flying machine, AEC had a turbo version ready for launch but those nice men at Leyland blocked it as they did with the V8 which at the time had had all the problems ironed out aledgedly
Did either of these engines ever see the light of day in test form with selected hauliers?
ramone:
ramone:
Thanks for that Frank ,i heard the AV505 was a bit of a flying machine, AEC had a turbo version ready for launch but those nice men at Leyland blocked it as they did with the V8 which at the time had had all the problems ironed out aledgedlyDid either of these engines ever see the light of day in test form with selected hauliers?
The AV506, which was fitted into the last Mercurys and Marshalls around mid-1976 to 1977, was the non-turbo version of the turbocharged AV505 development, (if that makes sense). As far as I know no turbocharged AV505s ever entered service. The revamped V8 was certainly running successfully on the testbed, and in turbo-charged format also, producing up to 360 bhp. I believe from what a senior AEC service engineer told me that the revamped V8 was fitted into their 6x4 American style cabover experimental tractor unit, with semi-automatic gearbox, but the senior management at Leyland took it from Southall to Leyland. Makes it sound like a strict parent taking a toy from a naughty boy!
gingerfold:
ramone:
ramone:
Thanks for that Frank ,i heard the AV505 was a bit of a flying machine, AEC had a turbo version ready for launch but those nice men at Leyland blocked it as they did with the V8 which at the time had had all the problems ironed out aledgedlyDid either of these engines ever see the light of day in test form with selected hauliers?
The AV506, which was fitted into the last Mercurys and Marshalls around mid-1976 to 1977, was the non-turbo version of the turbocharged AV505 development, (if that makes sense). As far as I know no turbocharged AV505s ever entered service. The revamped V8 was certainly running successfully on the testbed, and in turbo-charged format also, producing up to 360 bhp. I believe from what a senior AEC service engineer told me that the revamped V8 was fitted into their 6x4 American style cabover experimental tractor unit, with semi-automatic gearbox, but the senior management at Leyland took it from Southall to Leyland. Makes it sound like a strict parent taking a toy from a naughty boy!
You will probably have seen the article a while back about the american style cabover in the AEC Gazzette ,one of the testers remarked on the outstanding performance running up and down the M4 at its design weight i cant remember if it was 38 or 44 tons