windrush:
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.
Leave it out.More like constructive criticism and disbelief at how they chose to do the job v how Scania,or even to an extent Scammell,did it.When AEC had everything they needed to compete.Although if you want to go on believing that the AEC V8/Mandator,the 500 engine and the Marathon were all competitive products to take on the foreign competition,as opposed to the question of how could they have got it all so wrong,that’s up to you.So why does my 5 years as a council driver supposedly in your view trump the 5 years working in truck manufacturing making and testing trucks and in which with that background I can understand what Scania were doing in the day and why,but no way do I get what AEC were doing,in that regard.Remind us how long did AEC survive after its V8 debacle v Scania and its V8 range ?.
In reality 5 years working in truck manufacturing is nothing compared with design or production engineers who have spent 20, 30 or even 40 years in the job and if I read your previous comment correctly this was straight from School so not exactly at the highest of levels.
Spud1960:
In reality 5 years working in truck manufacturing is nothing compared with design or production engineers who have spent 20, 30 or even 40 years in the job and if I read your previous comment correctly this was straight from School so not exactly at the highest of levels.
Strange in that case how admittedly never having reached or even wanting to reach even the basic levels of the trade I can still understand perfectly what Scania’s design engineers did and have done to date with their V8 and Rolls and ■■■■■■■ and DAF’s among others in the case of their 6 cylinder designs.But AEC’s ideas regarding their V8 and to a lesser extent the TL12 have baffled me to this day.As I said it makes as much sense to me as anyone putting a Cosworth DFV in a Zodiac Mk4 or a Granada let alone then trying to tow a caravan with it. Which leaves the question of why the double standards regarding my admiration of predictably successful designs like the Scania V8 to date but not equally predictable ‘miserable failures’ like the AEC V8 ?.
[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. [/quote]
Until someone digs out the ■■■■■■■ V8 patents that Keith Roberts and Bob Fryars studied, reads them, and understands them, then we will never know the answer to your question. No doubt they would have also taken the proper legal advice from patent lawyers.
[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.
Yes, very true. One of the parameters of the Leyland design brief given to Michelotti for the Ergomatic was low entry for ease of access for the driver. However, with the 500 engine and later developments for the Marathon they soon found out that the low entry idea was a mistake. Perhaps that’s why the Berliet cab was considered for the Marathon, but all manufacturers would go to the high cab idea, not for the aesthetics of cab design but for the very good reasons of engine placement and chassis layout.
I must say the modern high cabs are a pain in the posterior if I have to shunt half a dozen trailers or so in our yard, as I have to do every Friday morning to fit everything in for weekend. Climbing up and down all those steps! If there’s a DAF CF handy I always use that, fewer steps. Probably an age thing.
ramone:
Where did Keith Roberts go when he left Southall?
Err…Rolls Royce working on Eagle developments…so I’ve got to agree with CF, he didn’t know what he was doing where engines were concerned
In fairness the Rolls/TX was a fair tool.Only in my later years have I been able to except this and this was after running a 410hp TX next to N14 500 electronic.
When Perkins took over at Rolls the same sort of thing happened with AEC and BL in lack of funding.It was a matter of “that will do” when standards were met when in reality the product could have been moved on to a higher standard.
ramone:
Where did Keith Roberts go when he left Southall?
Err…Rolls Royce working on Eagle developments…so I’ve got to agree with CF, he didn’t know what he was doing where engines were concerned
I will stand correction, but I believe Keith Roberts only had input into the 265, 290 and 305 Eagles, which are generally regarded as better than the earlier engines. However, in my experience, if ANY Rolls Eagle engine gave grief, then it REALLY gave grief, so I suppose it shares that with the AEC V8!.
ramone:
Where did Keith Roberts go when he left Southall?
Err…Rolls Royce working on Eagle developments…so I’ve got to agree with CF, he didn’t know what he was doing where engines were concerned
I will stand correction, but I believe Keith Roberts only had input into the 265, 290 and 305 Eagles, which are generally regarded as better than the earlier engines. However, in my experience, if ANY Rolls Eagle engine gave grief, then it REALLY gave grief, so I suppose it shares that with the AEC V8!.
I was using the Eagle name in a generic sense, the later turbo-charged units were developments of the normally aspirated Eagle, which existed before Keith Roberts joined RR, in a very senior position I understand. Mac Porkess replaced Keith at Southall for further work on the V8, and then the TL12. I’d like to find out a bit more about Mac Porkess, his name suggests that he was possibly American■■?
ERF:
I will stand correction, but I believe Keith Roberts only had input into the 265, 290 and 305 Eagles, which are generally regarded as better than the earlier engines. However, in my experience, if ANY Rolls Eagle engine gave grief, then it REALLY gave grief, so I suppose it shares that with the AEC V8!.
I was using the Eagle name in a generic sense, the later turbo-charged units were developments of the normally aspirated Eagle, which existed before Keith Roberts joined RR, in a very senior position I understand. Mac Porkess replaced Keith at Southall for further work on the V8, and then the TL12. I’d like to find out a bit more about Mac Porkess, his name suggests that he was possibly American■■?
Do you happen to know which year Keith Roberts left Southall?. I’m just wondering how many of the late production / post production V8 component improvements could be attributed to him, or to Mac Porkess. The cylinder heads we have already mentioned, but there were others, all minor, including an improved rear crankshaft oil sealing arrangement which I was going to detail in the next part of the engine restoration.
gingerfold:
…One of the parameters of the Leyland design brief given to Michelotti for the Ergomatic was low entry for ease of access for the driver… I must say the modern high cabs are a pain in the posterior if I have to shunt half a dozen trailers or so in our yard, as I have to do every Friday morning to fit everything in for weekend. Climbing up and down all those steps! If there’s a DAF CF handy I always use that, fewer steps. Probably an age thing.
If ever there was a reason to own a restored lorry, coupled with the means to buy one, coupled with the capability to maintain it, combined with a good business model for the investment, this is it. You owe yourself a Mandator, surely.
Carryfast: 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. [/quote]
Until someone digs out the ■■■■■■■ V8 patents that Keith Roberts and Bob Fryars studied, reads them, and understands them, then we will never know the answer to your question. No doubt they would have also taken the proper legal advice from patent lawyers.
If I’ve read it right that was all about some obscure deals with Guy and/or BMC which supposedly meant the need for a silly short stroke V8 to fit under their obviously equally silly cab designs.With the result that they settled on an even sillier 130 x 114 engine design to meet the spec.Although we know that Guy at least went on to fit a 14 litre ■■■■■■■ under their the Big J.However we know that by 1964 all that no longer existed.However we also know that Roberts and co were ‘delighted’ when they were told to resurrect their silly BMC/Guy design project and to fit it under the Mandator Ergo cab instead.While Fryers also says elsewhere in a CM article that they were actually ‘horrified’ at the instruction.
In which case no my question still stands.In that we know during this time the 3 VTG was also on the drawing board meaning that the original long gone and luckily still born possible BMC or Guy tie up no longer existed and with it the need for the silly engine to sit under the silly cab.So what did they do.They ditched the 3 VTG and any idea of making a proper V8 along the lines of the Scania and carried on with the idea of making the silly short stroke engine to fit under the equally silly Ergo cab.Bearing in mind that there was no big market out there for a 300 + hp V8 dustcart even if by some miracle they succeeded in extracting that amount of reliable power from their silly motor.
On that note what if the whole unbelievable story above is actually totally bs to cover what actually happened.In that Scania held enough of a financial interest in AEC to have been able to scupper the Leyland deal at any time if AEC dared to tread on Scania’s toes by making a proper 130 x 142 V8 and then put it in the 3 VTG.
ramone:
Where did Keith Roberts go when he left Southall?
Err…Rolls Royce working on Eagle developments…so I’ve got to agree with CF, he didn’t know what he was doing where engines were concerned
Some say that any link between the Eagle and AEC designers jumping ship is a myth because the dates of the Eagle being on the drawing board and Roberts etc leaving don’t tie up.However ‘if’ it actually was an AEC designer ( Roberts ? ) who gave Rolls their 130 x 152 design then surely that helps my case regarding the TL12 needing to be stroked to 152 or preferably 156 before getting anywhere near production and it took the move to Rolls,who actually knew what they were doing,to allow any decent designer to make that happen.Ironic then that it was the Rolls Eagle which helped to push the TL12 out of the T45 and where it belonged into oblivion.
Or was it that like a 130 x 142 3 VTG Scania didn’t want AEC making anything which could have over shadowed their products in this case their 6 cylinder design and when Scania said jump AEC said how high.
ramone:
Where did Keith Roberts go when he left Southall?
Err…Rolls Royce working on Eagle developments…so I’ve got to agree with CF, he didn’t know what he was doing where engines were concerned
I will stand correction, but I believe Keith Roberts only had input into the 265, 290 and 305 Eagles, which are generally regarded as better than the earlier engines.
If so his input obviously had nothing to do with the key difference being that between the TL12’s and Eagle’s stroke measurements.Remind us what happened to the TL12 v the Rolls in the T45.The difference being that without some serious/total re engineering of the block they were lumbered in the case of the 760.
But they didn’t have that excuse in the case of the V8 being a potentially clean sheet design after the supposed potential BMC merger was no longer an issue.In addition to the height provision contained in the 3 VTG cab design.Which leaves the fact that,if the story can be believed,Fryers seemed to be under the incorrect notion that a V8’s height is determined by its stroke regardless according to his comments.As proved by the lower overall height of the Scania V8 v the 8 v 71.
gingerfold:
Yes, very true. One of the parameters of the Leyland design brief given to Michelotti for the Ergomatic was low entry for ease of access for the driver. However, with the 500 engine and later developments for the Marathon they soon found out that the low entry idea was a mistake. Perhaps that’s why the Berliet cab was considered for the Marathon, but all manufacturers would go to the high cab idea, not for the aesthetics of cab design but for the very good reasons of engine placement and chassis layout.
I must say the modern high cabs are a pain in the posterior if I have to shunt half a dozen trailers or so in our yard, as I have to do every Friday morning to fit everything in for weekend. Climbing up and down all those steps! If there’s a DAF CF handy I always use that, fewer steps. Probably an age thing.
Just think what might have been if Scania had ditched the 140 on the grounds of it being too high to make a good yard shunter or dustcart or local delivery wagon.
The clue being that you don’t need a 300 hp + V8 powerd truck for that job.
So there we have it the 3 VTG with a 130 x 142 V8 in it would never have been viable because it would have been no good as a yard shunter or a dustcart or local delivery wagon.
Then some people say it was all the fault of the workers.
ERF:
I will stand correction, but I believe Keith Roberts only had input into the 265, 290 and 305 Eagles, which are generally regarded as better than the earlier engines. However, in my experience, if ANY Rolls Eagle engine gave grief, then it REALLY gave grief, so I suppose it shares that with the AEC V8!.
I was using the Eagle name in a generic sense, the later turbo-charged units were developments of the normally aspirated Eagle, which existed before Keith Roberts joined RR, in a very senior position I understand. Mac Porkess replaced Keith at Southall for further work on the V8, and then the TL12. I’d like to find out a bit more about Mac Porkess, his name suggests that he was possibly American■■?
Do you happen to know which year Keith Roberts left Southall?. I’m just wondering how many of the late production / post production V8 component improvements could be attributed to him, or to Mac Porkess. The cylinder heads we have already mentioned, but there were others, all minor, including an improved rear crankshaft oil sealing arrangement which I was going to detail in the next part of the engine restoration.
Just looking into this a bit deeper today, and A.M. (Mac) Porkess was the former head of the experimental division at Perkins Engines in Peterborough. He had been in this position for ten years when he joined AEC in 1968. Keith Roberts remained head of Leyland Truck and Bus power units and transmissions division until 1974.
That’s great information ERF. It’s interesting that in 1968 AEC was allowed by Leyland to bring in new blood from another engine maker. Presumably 1968 was when Keith Roberts moved up to Leyland.
gingerfold:
…One of the parameters of the Leyland design brief given to Michelotti for the Ergomatic was low entry for ease of access for the driver… I must say the modern high cabs are a pain in the posterior if I have to shunt half a dozen trailers or so in our yard, as I have to do every Friday morning to fit everything in for weekend. Climbing up and down all those steps! If there’s a DAF CF handy I always use that, fewer steps. Probably an age thing.
If ever there was a reason to own a restored lorry, coupled with the means to buy one, coupled with the capability to maintain it, combined with a good business model for the investment, this is it. You owe yourself a Mandator, surely.
An AV505 Mercury tractor unit would do me fine Anorak. it would be very useful in the yard. Don’t know what it is about drivers though, today there was plenty room in the yard, yet four of them were parked up so close together that on one of them I wanted to drop the trailer but there wasn’t room to wind the legs down. Another two were so close together that I couldn’t open the drivers door more than about a third and trying to clamber up four steps through that gap was a challenge. Yet come Friday when I want them parked up close together they will be scattered about like missionaries. And whilst we’re at it I’ll have taps on the airlines on the Mercury as well. Don’t know if it’s me getting weak but I have a hell of a job pushing red and yellow airlines on these days. I’m sure it never used to be so difficult years ago. And another thing, the Mercury would start on the touch of the button, unlike an Actros this afternoon. The batteries on these are huge but the terminals are not marked positive or negative so it was a lottery if I was putting the jump leads on the correct ones. By then I’d lost the will to live and I didn’t care if the poxy thing exploded or not. At least I’d be able to bump start the Mercury if it did have a flat battery unlike these auto box things. Progress eh…? No some things never change for the better in transport.
Anyway that’s my working blog for today…now back to the AEC V8, much more interesting.
Which leaves the question of why the double standards regarding my admiration of predictably successful designs like the Scania V8 to date but not equally predictable ‘miserable failures’ like the AEC V8 ?.
