coomsey:
Most of this topic goes over my head but still very interesting. But don’t you think it could be time to rename the thread. I’m thinking The AEC V8 Perseverance Society springs to mind. Cheers Paul
It’s like that aching tooth Paul, you know it will hurt probing it with your tongue but you still keep on doing it. As a one time HGV fitter (but never on AEC’s) I keep looking at this thread but get more and more frustrated when talk of what should have been done in the mind of a council gritter driver clouds what actually did happen when designed by experienced engine developers working to a tight budget and fitting it into an already established vehicle design. It appears obvious that CF has a downer on anything BL did, AEC and the Leyland Marathon/ 500 series engine range have both been ripped apart by him and I wonder which part of the company will suffer his wrath next, Albion possibly? A marvellous thing hindsight, we would all be millionaires if only we had had just as much foresight years ago.
Pete.
Best job in the world a critic, especially with hindsight n without accountability Pete
Carryfast:
…Ironically none of that taper seeming to be where it was most needed further back instead of where it closed in towards the rear of engine.
…It would have been interesting to see how the…Crusader and the Scania 140 all compared with the Mandator.
…It looks like AEC’s designers were working with an impossible combination of narrow track dimensions meaning narrow set chassis rails which then couldn’t be compensated for by any amount of taper.
…How did both Scammell and much more importantly Scania in this case both manage chassis designs to meet that spec whereas AEC couldn’t.Bearing in mind that they were all working without modern design aids at the same point in time ?.
…it seems to be the whole lot that’s wrong starting with the rear and then front track not being enough leading to too narrow chassis rail separation resulting in compromised engine space between the chassis rails.
…much of the problem seems to be the resulting pinch point between the chassis rails v the engine at around just forward of where the header tank is situated.Which is why I said it would have been interesting to see the equivalent 8v71 Crusader and Scania 140 chassis rail seperation and clearance around their respective engine locations and how they obtained it.
…With it being obvious that the Scania motor won’t sit in the chassis space shown in the photo provided previously which showed only just enough space for the smaller AEC moped motor.In large part because of the obvious pinch point I referred to.
…the 3 VTG just ‘might’ ‘possibly’ have given AEC the type of measurements they needed to sort out the Scania ?.Although I obviously don’t have the luxury of all the relevant details to hand but wouldn’t be at all surprised if AEC had made a cab over Pete knock off that still didn’t have enough room to fit a decent V8 motor in it.
‘cav551’, ‘railstaff’ and myself have all addressed every one of your supposed issues in regard of the chassis design, including your nonsense about rail spacing, rear axle track, front axle track and even engine bay width, yet you continue to harp on about a ‘pinch point’ - completely irrelevant. This was an AEC chassis specifically designed to fit a specific AEC engine, not a range of engines!.
Carryfast:
…I’ll take your given engine area available width with pinch of salt thanks.
Seems to be you who’s desperately moving the goal posts
Then I don’t think there is anything further to discuss here.
Continuing would only clog up this fine thread with yet more irrelevant waffle!.
coomsey:
Most of this topic goes over my head but still very interesting. But don’t you think it could be time to rename the thread. I’m thinking The AEC V8 Perseverance Society springs to mind. Cheers Paul
It’s like that aching tooth Paul, you know it will hurt probing it with your tongue but you still keep on doing it. As a one time HGV fitter (but never on AEC’s) I keep looking at this thread but get more and more frustrated when talk of what should have been done in the mind of a council gritter driver clouds what actually did happen when designed by experienced engine developers working to a tight budget and fitting it into an already established vehicle design. It appears obvious that CF has a downer on anything BL did, AEC and the Leyland Marathon/ 500 series engine range have both been ripped apart by him and I wonder which part of the company will suffer his wrath next, Albion possibly? A marvellous thing hindsight, we would all be millionaires if only we had had just as much foresight years ago.
Pete.
The little annoying kid at school who keeps bugging everyone but when he cops for an unfortunate on his nose end goes crying to the teacher
gingerfold:
At the end of the day AEC did what they were instructed to do by the Leyland Group Board of Directors and there is no getting away from that fact, irrespective of what the final result was. Leyland had suffered with the Tattersall engine and they had actually sanctioned the building of a new engine plant to produce 300 Tattersall engines weekly before one of these engines had even been tested. So with the very firm directive from the Directors about what the V8 was to be, and that it had to fit modified existing chassis and cab layouts, the design and development team had to follow the directive from head office to the letter. As I have written previously all that AEC had in late 1964 was a short stroke in-line experimental engine and a set of plans. If the instruction from above had been to start with a clean sheet design for engine, chassis, and cab then who knows what the final outcome might have been. The history of commercial vehicle design is littered with ifs, buts, and maybes.
As for Scania and AEC, then in the early 1960s the ACV group was the bigger company of the two and had a much larger world wide market. ACV had judged that the Commonwealth countries, where they had always enjoyed high sales figures, would become a declining market. They had identified the potential of the European market for future growth, that is why they considered Scania. The late Jim Slater was the AEC manager directing export strategy. Whatever the future held for him, Jim Slater was no mug.
Apologies if I have missed some of the detail, in the fog.
When the instruction from Leyland was passed down to AEC to develop the V8 for use under the Ergo cab, I wonder if high datum Ergo was already in their plans? If the V8 was intended to replace the 700 series as Leyland’s heavy lorry engine for the 1970s, the development of it would have coincided with that of the 500, for which the high-mounted cab was intended.
ERF:
‘cav551’, ‘railstaff’ and myself have all addressed every one of your supposed issues in regard of the chassis design, including your nonsense about rail spacing, rear axle track, front axle track and even engine bay width, yet you continue to harp on about a ‘pinch point’ - completely irrelevant. This was an AEC chassis specifically designed to fit a specific AEC engine, not a range of engines!.
Carryfast:
…I’ll take your given engine area available width with pinch of salt thanks.
Seems to be you who’s desperately moving the goal posts
Then I don’t think there is anything further to discuss here.
Continuing would only clog up this fine thread with yet more irrelevant waffle!.
The fact that the AEC V8 was designed specifically to fit the Manadator dust cart design is the point.The rest is history.
I actually said ‘it looks like’ from a distance going by an old period photo without the exact relevant measurements to confirm it.I also said that combined with the limitations caused by the Ergo cab.However at least almost 6 inches wider front track and whatever the actual chassis measurements and how they did it the fact is the Scania V8 did actually fit in the 140 and thereby easily met the 300 + hp target,using a decent stroke engine design which actually worked.On that note anyone would think that it was AEC which produced the right truck and not Scania,rather than vice versa,here.Meanwhile if you don’t like the correct description of miserable failure then moan at CM about it,being their words,not mine.
ERF:
So, despite a one inch wider front track, the Scania actually has a NARROWER chassis than either the AEC V8, or the Crusader, the latter being Identical from mid chassis to rear.
Carryfast:
…While a front track of 6’ 8.83’’ isn’t exactly ‘similar’ to a front track of 6’ 3.2’'.That’s almost half a foot wider track not bleedin 1 inch.
My appologies here.
I hadn’t noticed that ‘cav551’ had quoted an error in the CM information.
I have gone back and edited my post where I re-quoted it…
It now reads… (Front Track) AEC Mandator V8 - 6’ 3.2" Edit - it’s actually 6’ 8.1875" - cav551 quoted a mistake in the CM article - they meant 6’ 8.2" but it printed with an error, 3 instead of 8.
So, the AEC V8 has a front track just over half an inch narrower than the LB140.
ERF:
So, despite a one inch wider front track, the Scania actually has a NARROWER chassis than either the AEC V8, or the Crusader, the latter being Identical from mid chassis to rear.
Carryfast:
…While a front track of 6’ 8.83’’ isn’t exactly ‘similar’ to a front track of 6’ 3.2’'.That’s almost half a foot wider track not bleedin 1 inch.
My appologies here.
I hadn’t noticed that ‘cav551’ had quoted an error in the CM information.
I have gone back and edited my post where I re-quoted it…
It now reads… (Front Track) AEC Mandator V8 - 6’ 3.2" Edit - it’s actually 6’ 8.1875" - cav551 quoted a mistake in the CM article - they meant 6’ 8.2" but it printed with an error, 3 instead of 8.
So, the AEC V8 has a front track just over half an inch narrower than the LB140.
I understood what you wrote,just like all the others members.1st class pictures,quite clearly well educated on the subject.As CF has such a fetish on the “big” Swedish vee eight he could remind us who Scania teamed up with to design and produce it because one things for sure,they never done it on their own.
[zb]
anorak:
When the instruction from Leyland was passed down to AEC to develop the V8 for use under the Ergo cab, I wonder if high datum Ergo was already in their plans? If the V8 was intended to replace the 700 series as Leyland’s heavy lorry engine for the 1970s, the development of it would have coincided with that of the 500, for which the high-mounted cab was intended.
Having seemed to have clarified that the available chassis accommodation wasn’t any more of an issue than it would have been in the case of the Scania 140 ? and assuming either the 3 VTG or a higher set Ergo cab was on the drawing board ? to allow clearance and a decent radiator then what were the supposed height limitations on the engine design architecture referred to by Fryers all about ?.
When all they needed was the higher set cab preferably in the form of the 3 VTG.To clear a proper V8 along the lines of the 140’s.The basic architecture of which which they already had in the form of the 690.Having also ditched the idea of silly 130 x 114 design well before 1968.IE the 3 VGT fitted with a 130 x 142 V8 is the only option which makes any sense to me if the aim is a decent 300 + hp V8 long hauler to take on the 140.Which just leaves the question can we confirm that the 3 VTG was a similar chassis as the Mandator’s or does it again,like the Scania’s,just look bigger/better in the photos ?.
gingerfold:
At the end of the day AEC did what they were instructed to do by the Leyland Group Board of Directors and there is no getting away from that fact, irrespective of what the final result was. Leyland had suffered with the Tattersall engine and they had actually sanctioned the building of a new engine plant to produce 300 Tattersall engines weekly before one of these engines had even been tested. So with the very firm directive from the Directors about what the V8 was to be, and that it had to fit modified existing chassis and cab layouts, the design and development team had to follow the directive from head office to the letter. As I have written previously all that AEC had in late 1964 was a short stroke in-line experimental engine and a set of plans. If the instruction from above had been to start with a clean sheet design for engine, chassis, and cab then who knows what the final outcome might have been. The history of commercial vehicle design is littered with ifs, buts, and maybes.
As for Scania and AEC, then in the early 1960s the ACV group was the bigger company of the two and had a much larger world wide market. ACV had judged that the Commonwealth countries, where they had always enjoyed high sales figures, would become a declining market. They had identified the potential of the European market for future growth, that is why they considered Scania. The late Jim Slater was the AEC manager directing export strategy. Whatever the future held for him, Jim Slater was no mug.
Apologies if I have missed some of the detail, in the fog.
When the instruction from Leyland was passed down to AEC to develop the V8 for use under the Ergo cab, I wonder if high datum Ergo was already in their plans? If the V8 was intended to replace the 700 series as Leyland’s heavy lorry engine for the 1970s, the development of it would have coincided with that of the 500, for which the high-mounted cab was intended.
Difficult to say for certain, but I would think not or else from day one of the Mandator V8 it would have been fitted. The first use of the high datum cab on the the V8 was 1968, some months before the first 500 series model, the Lynx, was launched. Leyland and AEC knew they had a problem with the bigger in-line engines in that cab from late 1965 when the first Mandators and Beavers appeared. I know from personal experience how little room there was between the exhaust manifold and engine cover side of an AV760 in a Marshal Major. I still have a burn scar on my right arm from priming the fuel lift pump when I had got some sediment in the fuel tank. Rather than tilt the cab to get at the lift pump I reached down with the cab in place and found out that the exhaust manifold got rather hot with 15 tons of barley in the tipper body.
gingerfold:
…Difficult to say for certain, but I would think not or else from day one of the Mandator V8 it would have been fitted. The first use of the high datum cab on the the V8 was 1968, some months before the first 500 series model, the Lynx, was launched. Leyland and AEC knew they had a problem with the bigger in-line engines in that cab from late 1965 when the first Mandators and Beavers appeared. I know from personal experience how little room there was between the exhaust manifold and engine cover side of an AV760 in a Marshal Major. I still have a burn scar on my right arm from priming the fuel lift pump when I had got some sediment in the fuel tank. Rather than tilt the cab to get at the lift pump I reached down with the cab in place and found out that the exhaust manifold got rather hot with 15 tons of barley in the tipper body.
It seems as if there was a general need to raise the cab, for any of the more powerful engines, plus the cam-on-top 500. After all, putting the cab at a different height is not an expensive thing to tool.
railstaff:
…As CF has such a fetish on the “big” Swedish vee eight he could remind us who Scania teamed up with to design and produce it because one things for sure,they never done it on their own.
I believe it: bigmacktrucks.com/topic/346 … operation/
The only bit I would question in that is the assumption that the 16.4 litre engines share the basic block:
Scania’s current 16.4 liter version of the Mack/Scania block…
I thought the 15.6 and 16.4 litre Scania V8s were completely new designs, not developments of the DS14?
A DC16 block is physically bigger,there is a two inch gap between the heads.
How I understood it was Scania and mack both shared/collaborated with the END865(pre E9),Scania used it at 14litre,Mack used it at 14 and later 16 litre.Scania developed their own later 16 litre engine with the said gaps between the heads.Volvo pulled the plug.
I have heard mentioned that Scania based their DS14 on the AEC 810.Not true.
[zb]
anorak:
It seems as if there was a general need to raise the cab, for any of the more powerful engines, plus the cam-on-top 500. After all, putting the cab at a different height is not an expensive thing to tool.
railstaff:
…As CF has such a fetish on the “big” Swedish vee eight he could remind us who Scania teamed up with to design and produce it because one things for sure,they never done it on their own.
Who helped them?
For me the whole topic revolves around the question of what stood in the way of the obvious possibility,of the AEC V8 being a 130 x 142 design and put in the 3 VTG job done.How difficult could that have been.
Yes, that’s as I understand it. The site I linked seems to think that the 16 litre Mack and Scania engines are based on the same block, based on their similar capacity (16.4 litres).
Carryfast:
…The fact that the AEC V8 was designed specifically to fit the Manadator dust cart design is the point.The rest is history.
You need to get your head around the fact that AEC designed the V8 chassis to accommodate their V8 engine. It is a fundamentally different chassis from that of the AV760 Mandator.
Carryfast:
…I actually said ‘it looks like’ from a distance going by an old period photo without the exact relevant measurements to confirm it.
It would perhaps be an idea to refrain from posting nonsense then. Restrain yourself until you are in possession of enough relevant information to construct an accurate and meaningful response, then we will all benefit.
Carryfast:
…I also said that combined with the limitations caused by the Ergo cab.However at least almost 6 inches wider front track and whatever the actual chassis measurements and how they did it the fact is the Scania V8 did actually fit in the 140 and thereby easily met the 300 + hp target,using a decent stroke engine design which actually worked…
The LB140 front track is 0.64" wider than the AEC V8, not 6 inches.
Although being generous, I will accept responsibility for the confusion (see previous posts).
Carryfast:
…Which just leaves the question can we confirm that the 3 VTG was a similar chassis as the Mandator’s or does it again,like the Scania’s,just look bigger/better in the photos
So, even now that you are in possession of the relevant measurements, and have seen comparison photographs, you STILL refuse to accept that the Mandator V8 and LB140 chassis are of an almost identical basic design?. I knew I was fighting a lost cause trying to enlighten you, but
Carryfast:
…The fact that the AEC V8 was designed specifically to fit the Manadator dust cart design is the point.The rest is history.
You need to get your head around the fact that AEC designed the V8 chassis to accommodate their V8 engine. It is a fundamentally different chassis from that of the AV760 Mandator.
Carryfast:
…I actually said ‘it looks like’ from a distance going by an old period photo without the exact relevant measurements to confirm it.
It would perhaps be an idea to refrain from posting nonsense then. Restrain yourself until you are in possession of enough relevant information to construct an accurate and meaningful response, then we will all benefit.
Carryfast:
…I also said that combined with the limitations caused by the Ergo cab.However at least almost 6 inches wider front track and whatever the actual chassis measurements and how they did it the fact is the Scania V8 did actually fit in the 140 and thereby easily met the 300 + hp target,using a decent stroke engine design which actually worked…
The LB140 front track is 0.64" wider than the AEC V8, not 6 inches.
Although being generous, I will accept responsibility for the confusion (see previous posts).
Carryfast:
…Which just leaves the question can we confirm that the 3 VTG was a similar chassis as the Mandator’s or does it again,like the Scania’s,just look bigger/better in the photos
So, even now that you are in possession of the relevant measurements, and have seen comparison photographs, you STILL refuse to accept that the Mandator V8 and LB140 chassis are of an almost identical basic design?. I knew I was fighting a lost cause trying to enlighten you, but
I’m I right in thinking the 760 variants had parallel frames?
railstaff:
I have heard mentioned that Scania based their DS14 on the AEC 810.Not true.
To the best of my recollection it was the late Pat Kennett that first went to print with that. In Truck magazine I think it was. Where on earth he got it from, I have no idea.
[zb]
anorak:
Yes, that’s as I understand it. The site I linked seems to think that the 16 litre Mack and Scania engines are based on the same block, based on their similar capacity (16.4 litres).
If I remember correctly at the time Scania were using it at 14.2 litre,Mack were using it at 16 litre.
Carryfast:
…The fact that the AEC V8 was designed specifically to fit the Manadator dust cart design is the point.The rest is history.
You need to get your head around the fact that AEC designed the V8 chassis to accommodate their V8 engine. It is a fundamentally different chassis from that of the AV760 Mandator.
Carryfast:
…I actually said ‘it looks like’ from a distance going by an old period photo without the exact relevant measurements to confirm it.
It would perhaps be an idea to refrain from posting nonsense then. Restrain yourself until you are in possession of enough relevant information to construct an accurate and meaningful response, then we will all benefit.
Carryfast:
…I also said that combined with the limitations caused by the Ergo cab.However at least almost 6 inches wider front track and whatever the actual chassis measurements and how they did it the fact is the Scania V8 did actually fit in the 140 and thereby easily met the 300 + hp target,using a decent stroke engine design which actually worked…
The LB140 front track is 0.64" wider than the AEC V8, not 6 inches.
Although being generous, I will accept responsibility for the confusion (see previous posts).
Carryfast:
…Which just leaves the question can we confirm that the 3 VTG was a similar chassis as the Mandator’s or does it again,like the Scania’s,just look bigger/better in the photos
So, even now that you are in possession of the relevant measurements, and have seen comparison photographs, you STILL refuse to accept that the Mandator V8 and LB140 chassis are of an almost identical basic design?. I knew I was fighting a lost cause trying to enlighten you, but
Ironically my seemingly mistaken premise was mostly based on you saying that the Detroit 8v71 wouldn’t fit in the Mandator ‘chassis’.Then me taking that at face value.So are you saying it actually would have fitted in the Mandator ‘chassis’ but not under the Ergo cab ?.In addition to then also taking that forward to the longer stroke but actually lower Scania V8 engine.
While you’ll see that I’ve already happily accepted that premise in moving on to the question why didn’t they make the V8 a 130 x 142 design and put it under the 3 VTG cab.No need for all the bad tempered aggro regarding that simple question.The answer to which I’d suggest could very well be the smoking gun which proves conspiracy not ■■■■ up.
