cav551:
[
That is the crux of it. This was the V8 vehicle was to complement the range.
Absolutely spot on there cav551. Customers had a choice of buying it or not and whilst it was not the best of times for AEC with the V8 problems their customer back-up and support policy smoothed over most of the customer issues. It was a different kind of failure to the 500 engine range where if a customer ordered a Lynx, Bison, Buffalo, or Octopus it was a 500 engine derivative only.
How would you compare the equivalent today to the V8 in performance terms on its launch. Everything was around 150 bhp - 200 bhp for top weight vehicles so forget the reliability issues , what would be a similar comparison today .Weve seen posts on here where a hour or two have been shaved off a trip using a V8 compared with an AV760 , would you be comparing a 440bhp to a 730bhp say today. Obviously the difference in bhp then would have been 50 bhp to say 80 bhp but the performance was startling apparently . I would doubt that a 730bhp would knock a hour or two off something with 300bhp less nowadays due to speed limiters and other restrictions. Im probably not wording this correctly but what Im trying to say is that I cant see an engine or vehicle for that matter shaving a hour or two off a journey these days on UK soil as the V8 did on its launch ,and this compared with one of the premium performers of the time the AV760… Obviously someone who can see into the future will be able to tell us different 
gingerfold:
ERF, you’re good and patient at digging for information, I have found a reference to AEC in “The Engineer” journal, dated 1968/05/24, but I haven’t found a means of accessing it. As that date is bang on coincidental with the launch of the Mandator V8, then it could be about the vehicle and engine. If it is it would be interesting to read that journal’s take on the V8.
Whilst I can’t find the 24th of May copy with the article at present amongst my father’s old journals, the index available online for January to June 1968 lists only one AEC article in that period, and that article is quite strange in itself “AEC Ltd - Reconditioning of American International Harvester buses operating in the Philippines”.
I will keep looking for the actual copy though, just to be sure.
Unfortunately the Bramley with Bramley comparison of the V8 Mandator and the 760 one in the CM road tests doesn’t really work very well. CM Archive 31/5/68 and 24/5/72. While both vehicles covered basically the same route it was not identical. One going over Shap the other on the M6 and other deviations from the familiar route. The results were fairly similar.
cav551:
Unfortunately the Bramley with Bramley comparison of the V8 Mandator and the 760 one in the CM road tests doesn’t really work very well. CM Archive 31/5/68 and 24/5/72. While both vehicles covered basically the same route it was not identical. One going over Shap the other on the M6 and other deviations from the familiar route. The results were fairly similar.
What i was trying to get across was the startling performance of the V8 compared with what the UK was offering at the time after reading comments from different posters on here. I dont think you would get such a leap forward today on normal operation vehicles today. But the late 60s early `70s saw leaps forward in performance and comfort whereas now the emphasis is on emmissions and mpg.Fuel consumption as always been a big factor but now more so due to fuel being the biggest cost to hauliers , emmissions though imho is something we over emphisise on but i wont go into that
ramone:
How would you compare the equivalent today to the V8 in performance terms on its launch. Everything was around 150 bhp - 200 bhp for top weight vehicles so forget the reliability issues , what would be a similar comparison today .Weve seen posts on here where a hour or two have been shaved off a trip using a V8 compared with an AV760 , would you be comparing a 440bhp to a 730bhp say today. Obviously the difference in bhp then would have been 50 bhp to say 80 bhp but the performance was startling apparently . I would doubt that a 730bhp would knock a hour or two off something with 300bhp less nowadays due to speed limiters and other restrictions. Im probably not wording this correctly but what Im trying to say is that I cant see an engine or vehicle for that matter shaving a hour or two off a journey these days on UK soil as the V8 did on its launch ,and this compared with one of the premium performers of the time the AV760… Obviously someone who can see into the future will be able to tell us different
Things to consider, 44 gtw today, speed limiters today, traffic conditions today. So greater power will give marginal gains, but nothing dramatic. and 440 bhp today (metric) is equivalent to 404 bhp (imperial), which is the measurement used for British, and British use (imported) engines in the 1960s. I think the old imperial bhp rating was binned when we joined the EU.
newmercman:
For God’s sake man, do you not absorb anything you read. At the time of the testing there wasn’t a 140 Scania and if the DD powered Crusader existed it was only in Miltary spec. The V8 Mandator may have been the most powerful lorry on sale in Britain at the time, the only thing that came close was the Scania Vabis LB76.Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
In 1968, I reckon you’re just about right. IIRC, the LB76 was trading places with the OM Titano for the title of Europe’s most powerful roadgoing commercial vehicle. For the record, the LB had 250bhp to BS141Au, against the AEC’s 247. Of course, all of the other Europeans were well on the way to launching engines above 300bhp, so 1969 is a different situation altogether.
Carryfast:
cav551:
…By the time production commenced the close ratio Fuller 0600 series box was being fitted by other manufacturers - the clue to its torque capacity being in its name. AEC themselves did at a later date offer this as an option for the 760 powered Mandator, but notably not for the engine at its highest output rating. The only gearbox commonly fitted at the time with a higher torque rating was IIRC Fodens 12 speed which would have been an unlikely alliance.So in 1962 while it might have been possible to have produced an engine which produced more torque, there was a good reason not to do so at that time. That option being left to the planned AV800 and the follow ups which never materialised.
…Fuller couldn’t provide anything with more than a 600 lb/ft rating then what rating were they using in the 8v71 powered '65 KW as shown here ?.Bearing in mind that 12v71 Brockway 359’s weren’t unheard of by '66 either.
and what was Scammell using in the 8v71 powered Crusader.Number 1 off the line reportedly being an 8v71 powered 6x4 in '68 ?.
You really need to raise your sights here regarding what was available and when and whatever stopped AEC from putting a 320 hp,690 based,V8 in the 3VTG by '68-'69 it wasn’t because Fuller couldn’t have provided them with a box to handle it.
Carryfast, I really wish you would come to the realisation that Great Britain is not the United States of America.
In 1964 Fuller Transmissions had virtually no presence at all in Europe. By 1968 the Fuller twin countershaft RT and RTO 510 (soon to become the 610) transmissions had been introduced to Europe, and after a concerted effort from the importers, including their demonstration conversions of several existing production vehicles to Fuller RT and RTO 510 gearboxes, they began to get the attention of operators due to it’s drivability, compact proportion and light weight. Demand and reputation slowly began to grow for the Fuller. UK (and European) manufacturers started to take note, and began to offer the (by then) 610 as a production option with a carefully matched differential ratio. This required them to take on board full responsibility for service, spares and warranty of this new transmission - a massive undertaking, only made possible by Eaton Yale and Towne beginning to support and manufacture the Fuller 610 transmission at Worsley.
By the time that Fuller USA had developed and put into production the heavier duty twin countershaft RT and RTO 910 in the mid 1960’s, the AEC V8 project was already in it’s final stages of development. On paper the 910 is the gearbox best matched to the AEC V8 engine, however it was not a transmission supported by Eaton Yale and Towne (and wouldn’t be until 1969), and was both physically larger in size and heavier than AEC’s own D251 ten-speed splitter gearbox, which was already in production by 1968 and had already been chosen as a Mandator V8 production option.
Had the AEC V8 project succeeded, and higher output V8 engines come into production, be in no doubt that the Fuller 910 and then 9509 series would have been offered by AEC through the 1970’s. You could argue that AEC had actually predicted this by 1965, choosing to equip their new V8 engine with an SAE 1 flywheel housing, making a plethora of future heavy duty gearbox options possible.
gingerfold:
ramone:
How would you compare the equivalent today to the V8 in performance terms on its launch. Everything was around 150 bhp - 200 bhp for top weight vehicles so forget the reliability issues , what would be a similar comparison today .Weve seen posts on here where a hour or two have been shaved off a trip using a V8 compared with an AV760 , would you be comparing a 440bhp to a 730bhp say today. Obviously the difference in bhp then would have been 50 bhp to say 80 bhp but the performance was startling apparently . I would doubt that a 730bhp would knock a hour or two off something with 300bhp less nowadays due to speed limiters and other restrictions. Im probably not wording this correctly but what Im trying to say is that I cant see an engine or vehicle for that matter shaving a hour or two off a journey these days on UK soil as the V8 did on its launch ,and this compared with one of the premium performers of the time the AV760… Obviously someone who can see into the future will be able to tell us differentThings to consider, 44 gtw today, speed limiters today, traffic conditions today. So greater power will give marginal gains, but nothing dramatic. and 440 bhp today (metric) is equivalent to 404 bhp (imperial), which is the measurement used for British, and British use (imported) engines in the 1960s. I think the old imperial bhp rating was binned when we joined the EU.
What im trying to say is can you remember another vehicle that made such an impression on the haulage scene as the V8 did back in 68 . Obviously Volvo and Scania will be mentioned but 50 years on so many tales from drivers come back mostly saying the same thing ,an astonishing performer .Yes the UK haulage scene in `68 would have been very sedate pace wise with the Leyland 680 and the AV760 probably ruling the roost on power and 150 Gardners a safe bet but the forward thinking that BL/AEC had to produce such a vehicle can only be comended because as one of our most valuable and well informed contributors would say … the rest is history !!!
ERF:
…It’s very difficult to know for sure exactly what causes the poor coolant circulation in these engines, but when you study the path the coolant takes (with the thermostat open) from the bottom radiator hose, around the engine, and then back out the top hose it is incredibly convoluted. It is no real surprise that hot spots could develop in the block, particularly around No 4 cylinder, but to cure it would require a redesign of the entire block casting including the water pump location and the coolant path, something I am sure AEC had on the drawing board before the engine even went into production. This would be the only way to fully sort it. No amount of different cabs or larger header tanks would cure the compromised design, although certainly increasing the coolant capacity could only have helped.
Are you tempted to experiment with improvements, such as an additional slave pump let into a hose or rail (to relieve high pressure in one place and reduce boiling in another)?
[zb]
anorak:ERF:
…It’s very difficult to know for sure exactly what causes the poor coolant circulation in these engines, but when you study the path the coolant takes (with the thermostat open) from the bottom radiator hose, around the engine, and then back out the top hose it is incredibly convoluted. It is no real surprise that hot spots could develop in the block, particularly around No 4 cylinder, but to cure it would require a redesign of the entire block casting including the water pump location and the coolant path, something I am sure AEC had on the drawing board before the engine even went into production. This would be the only way to fully sort it. No amount of different cabs or larger header tanks would cure the compromised design, although certainly increasing the coolant capacity could only have helped.Are you tempted to experiment with improvements, such as an additional slave pump let into a hose or rail (to relieve high pressure in one place and reduce boiling in another)?
I’m not, no, for a couple of reasons.
Additional pumps and interfering with the rails could well have the opposite effect in this engine, and create problems elsewhere in the system. Without analysing the coolant flow in extreme detail, it would be impossible to say for sure exactly which modifications would be required to fully cure, or even improve the problem. One thing is clear though, it would at the very least involve changes to the cylinder block casting core patterns, and a new block, and that’s never going to be practical.
The second reason is that I wanted to maintain originality, especially visually. I have made improvements inside the engine where modern specialised processes allow the original components to be more durable, but that’s all.
ramone:
cav551:
Unfortunately the Bramley with Bramley comparison of the V8 Mandator and the 760 one in the CM road tests doesn’t really work very well. CM Archive 31/5/68 and 24/5/72. While both vehicles covered basically the same route it was not identical. One going over Shap the other on the M6 and other deviations from the familiar route. The results were fairly similar.What i was trying to get across was the startling performance of the V8 compared with what the UK was offering at the time after reading comments from different posters on here. I don
t think you would get such a leap forward today on normal operation vehicles today. But the late60s early `70s saw leaps forward in performance and comfort whereas now the emphasis is on emmissions and mpg.Fuel consumption as always been a big factor but now more so due to fuel being the biggest cost to hauliers , emmissions though imho is something we over emphisise on but i wont go into that
Bearing in mind that we’re discussing trucks not F1 race cars the emphasis was/is on producing the most power for the least engine speed and mpg generally goes along with that.Yes we know that some tried to cheat by going for more horsepower created by multiplying less torque by more engine speed,or two strokes with the usual results on durability and/or fuel consumption.
Also it’s difficult to see where this supposed massive increase in performance is coming from when at best you’ve only got similar torque output to a 690 and around 250-275 hp at a screaming 2,600 rpm.WIth an engine that can’t provide any more torque to the torque x engine speed equation without breaking and is breaking with what it’s even got.Make no mistake if there was any massive leap in performance using V8’s going on here in the late 1960’s it could only have been a two horse race between the 8v71 powered Crusader and the Scania 140 and no surprise that the 140 ■■■■■■ over the 8v71 in that regard.
ERF:
Carryfast:
cav551:
…By the time production commenced the close ratio Fuller 0600 series box was being fitted by other manufacturers - the clue to its torque capacity being in its name. AEC themselves did at a later date offer this as an option for the 760 powered Mandator, but notably not for the engine at its highest output rating. The only gearbox commonly fitted at the time with a higher torque rating was IIRC Fodens 12 speed which would have been an unlikely alliance.So in 1962 while it might have been possible to have produced an engine which produced more torque, there was a good reason not to do so at that time. That option being left to the planned AV800 and the follow ups which never materialised.
…Fuller couldn’t provide anything with more than a 600 lb/ft rating then what rating were they using in the 8v71 powered '65 KW as shown here ?.Bearing in mind that 12v71 Brockway 359’s weren’t unheard of by '66 either.
and what was Scammell using in the 8v71 powered Crusader.Number 1 off the line reportedly being an 8v71 powered 6x4 in '68 ?.
You really need to raise your sights here regarding what was available and when and whatever stopped AEC from putting a 320 hp,690 based,V8 in the 3VTG by '68-'69 it wasn’t because Fuller couldn’t have provided them with a box to handle it.
Carryfast, I really wish you would come to the realisation that Great Britain is not the United States of America.
In 1964 Fuller Transmissions had virtually no presence at all in Europe. By 1968 the Fuller twin countershaft RT and RTO 510 (soon to become the 610) transmissions had been introduced to Europe, and after a concerted effort from the importers, including their demonstration conversions of several existing production vehicles to Fuller RT and RTO 510 gearboxes, they began to get the attention of operators due to it’s drivability, compact proportion and light weight. Demand and reputation slowly began to grow for the Fuller. UK (and European) manufacturers started to take note, and began to offer the (by then) 610 as a production option with a carefully matched differential ratio. This required them to take on board full responsibility for service, spares and warranty of this new transmission - a massive undertaking, only made possible by Eaton Yale and Towne beginning to support and manufacture the Fuller 610 transmission at Worsley.
By the time that Fuller USA had developed and put into production the heavier duty twin countershaft RT and RTO 910 in the mid 1960’s, the AEC V8 project was already in it’s final stages of development. On paper the 910 is the gearbox best matched to the AEC V8 engine, however it was not a transmission supported by Eaton Yale and Towne (and wouldn’t be until 1969), and was both physically larger in size and heavier than AEC’s own D251 ten-speed splitter gearbox, which was already in production by 1968 and had already been chosen as a Mandator V8 production option.
Had the AEC V8 project succeeded, and higher output V8 engines come into production, be in no doubt that the Fuller 910 and then 9509 series would have been offered by AEC through the 1970’s. You could argue that AEC had actually predicted this by 1965, choosing to equip their new V8 engine with an SAE 1 flywheel housing, making a plethora of future heavy duty gearbox options possible.
So let’s get this right it was possible to get a 13 speed let alone 9 speed Fuller up to the job of handling the torque output of a 12v71 in '66 and Scammell managed to at least put a relevant transmission behind its 800 lb/ft 8v71 powered Crusader launched the same year as the V8 Mandator in 1968.But nothing more than 600 lb/ft had been set in stone by AEC before their V8 was put into production because,according to them,it was impossible to source the right transmission for more.So how were they possibly going to meet the 300 hp + target spec given to them by Group Engineering director at the start in around '64 and from that point,having crippled the thing with insufficient torque potential from the start ?.IE where was this supposed torque increase going to magically appear from with the silly 114 mm stroke without breaking the engine ?.As for the excuses given there related to transmission sourcing,no I don’t buy it sounds like total bs to me.IE if they knew the product support was going to be there in 1970’s then they knew it could be there in the 1960’s ‘if’ they’d have bothered to ask for it.
Or of course the relevant governments wouldn’t have allowed them to import the right kit assuming a plot to make sure the Brits didn’t throw a spanner in the works’ of Europe’s post war debt repayments.On that note it all looks like a back door trade embargo to make sure we didn’t get ahead of the foreign competition to me.Bearing in mind that the competition like Scania obviously didn’t need to ask for Fuller’s help here unlike AEC. 
Carryfast:
ERF:
Carryfast:
cav551:
…By the time production commenced the close ratio Fuller 0600 series box was being fitted by other manufacturers - the clue to its torque capacity being in its name. AEC themselves did at a later date offer this as an option for the 760 powered Mandator, but notably not for the engine at its highest output rating. The only gearbox commonly fitted at the time with a higher torque rating was IIRC Fodens 12 speed which would have been an unlikely alliance.So in 1962 while it might have been possible to have produced an engine which produced more torque, there was a good reason not to do so at that time. That option being left to the planned AV800 and the follow ups which never materialised.
…Fuller couldn’t provide anything with more than a 600 lb/ft rating then what rating were they using in the 8v71 powered '65 KW as shown here ?.Bearing in mind that 12v71 Brockway 359’s weren’t unheard of by '66 either.
and what was Scammell using in the 8v71 powered Crusader.Number 1 off the line reportedly being an 8v71 powered 6x4 in '68 ?.
You really need to raise your sights here regarding what was available and when and whatever stopped AEC from putting a 320 hp,690 based,V8 in the 3VTG by '68-'69 it wasn’t because Fuller couldn’t have provided them with a box to handle it.
Carryfast, I really wish you would come to the realisation that Great Britain is not the United States of America.
In 1964 Fuller Transmissions had virtually no presence at all in Europe. By 1968 the Fuller twin countershaft RT and RTO 510 (soon to become the 610) transmissions had been introduced to Europe, and after a concerted effort from the importers, including their demonstration conversions of several existing production vehicles to Fuller RT and RTO 510 gearboxes, they began to get the attention of operators due to it’s drivability, compact proportion and light weight. Demand and reputation slowly began to grow for the Fuller. UK (and European) manufacturers started to take note, and began to offer the (by then) 610 as a production option with a carefully matched differential ratio. This required them to take on board full responsibility for service, spares and warranty of this new transmission - a massive undertaking, only made possible by Eaton Yale and Towne beginning to support and manufacture the Fuller 610 transmission at Worsley.
By the time that Fuller USA had developed and put into production the heavier duty twin countershaft RT and RTO 910 in the mid 1960’s, the AEC V8 project was already in it’s final stages of development. On paper the 910 is the gearbox best matched to the AEC V8 engine, however it was not a transmission supported by Eaton Yale and Towne (and wouldn’t be until 1969), and was both physically larger in size and heavier than AEC’s own D251 ten-speed splitter gearbox, which was already in production by 1968 and had already been chosen as a Mandator V8 production option.
Had the AEC V8 project succeeded, and higher output V8 engines come into production, be in no doubt that the Fuller 910 and then 9509 series would have been offered by AEC through the 1970’s. You could argue that AEC had actually predicted this by 1965, choosing to equip their new V8 engine with an SAE 1 flywheel housing, making a plethora of future heavy duty gearbox options possible.
So let’s get this right it was possible to get a 13 speed let alone 9 speed Fuller up to the job of handling the torque output of a 12v71 in '66 and Scammell managed to at least put a relevant transmission behind its 800 lb/ft 8v71 powered Crusader launched the same year as the V8 Mandator in 1968.But nothing more than 600 lb/ft had been set in stone by AEC before their V8 was put into production because,according to them,it was impossible to source the right transmission for more.So how were they possibly going to meet the 300 hp + target spec given to them by Group Engineering director at the start in around '64 and from that point,having crippled the thing with insufficient torque potential from the start ?.IE where was this supposed torque increase going to magically appear from with the silly 114 mm stroke without breaking the engine ?.As for the excuses given there related to transmission sourcing,no I don’t buy it sounds like total bs to me.IE if they knew the product support was going to be there in 1970’s then they knew it could be there in the 1960’s ‘if’ they’d have bothered to ask for it.
Or of course the relevant governments wouldn’t have allowed them to import the right kit assuming a plot to make sure the Brits didn’t throw a spanner in the works’ of Europe’s post war debt repayments.On that note it all looks like a back door trade embargo to make sure we didn’t get ahead of the foreign competition to me.Bearing in mind that the competition like Scania obviously didn’t need to ask for Fuller’s help here unlike AEC.
ERF’s summary of Fuller boxes available seems about right to me. IIRC the earlier Crusaders had 10-speed Fullers (or the 15-speed version in the 6x4s). They were replaced by the newer and more robust 9-speed box later. Robert
Carryfast:
So let’s get this right it was possible to get a 13 speed let alone 9 speed Fuller up to the job of handling the torque output of a 12v71 in '66 and Scammell managed to at least put a relevant transmission behind its 800 lb/ft 8v71 powered Crusader launched the same year as the V8 Mandator in 1968.
Being able to get / equip a concept / low volume specialist vehicle is a vastly different requirement than being able to provide spares, service and warranty for a high volume production vehicle that it’s manufacturer intended to sell thousands of per annum. The fact is that ENV supplied these USA assembled Fuller transmissions to Scammell in that period, and before Eaton Yale and Towne began UK production, there is no way ENV had the capacity to supply AEC’s projected requirements, so for the reasons I have already covered in my previous post, and really can’t be bothered to repeat, the Fuller gearbox was not included in the initial AEC V8 design brief.
Carryfast:
Waffle - Waffle
The rest of your post is just complete nonsense, and I really can’t be bothered to go through it all - yet again.
ERF:
Carryfast:
So let’s get this right it was possible to get a 13 speed let alone 9 speed Fuller up to the job of handling the torque output of a 12v71 in '66 and Scammell managed to at least put a relevant transmission behind its 800 lb/ft 8v71 powered Crusader launched the same year as the V8 Mandator in 1968.Being able to get / equip a concept / low volume specialist vehicle is a vastly different requirement than being able to provide spares, service and warranty for a high volume production vehicle that it’s manufacturer intended to sell thousands of per annum. The fact is that ENV supplied these USA assembled Fuller transmissions to Scammell in that period, and before Eaton Yale and Towne began UK production, there is no way ENV had the capacity to supply AEC’s projected requirements, so for the reasons I have already covered in my previous post, and really can’t be bothered to repeat, the Fuller gearbox was not included in the initial AEC V8 design brief.
Carryfast:
Waffle - WaffleThe rest of your post is just complete nonsense, and I really can’t be bothered to go through it all - yet again.
You`re learning
ERF-NGC-European:
ERF’s summary of Fuller boxes available seems about right to me. IIRC the earlier Crusaders had 10-speed Fullers (or the 15-speed version in the 6x4s). They were replaced by the newer and more robust 9-speed box later. Robert
Whatever Scammell did they obviously used something up to the torque output of the 8v71 which at around 800 lb/ft was a lot more than the AEC V8’s less than 600 lb/ft.While how difficult could a phone call to Fuller have been.Along the lines of we know you’ve got something which can handle the output of the 8v71 and 12v71 and we need it ASAP and we’ll obviously make it well worth your while in proposed orders.
Meanwhile how could they possibly have increased the torque output of the AEC V8 sufficiently to have met the original design spec of 300 hp +.When the answer could only have gone along the lines of we can’t do 300 + with the engine dimensions and resulting 114 mm stroke you’ll need to fit it under the Ergo cab.But we can do something much better using the 3 VTG cab design which we’ve got on the drawing board.We just need to ask Fuller for the right transmission and get on with making a V8 based on the 690’s architecture and ditch the Mandator project.This is around 1965/6.Job done.
ERF:
Carryfast:
So let’s get this right it was possible to get a 13 speed let alone 9 speed Fuller up to the job of handling the torque output of a 12v71 in '66 and Scammell managed to at least put a relevant transmission behind its 800 lb/ft 8v71 powered Crusader launched the same year as the V8 Mandator in 1968.Being able to get / equip a concept / low volume specialist vehicle is a vastly different requirement than being able to provide spares, service and warranty for a high volume production vehicle that it’s manufacturer intended to sell thousands of per annum. The fact is that ENV supplied these USA assembled Fuller transmissions to Scammell in that period, and before Eaton Yale and Towne began UK production, there is no way ENV had the capacity to supply AEC’s projected requirements, so for the reasons I have already covered in my previous post, and really can’t be bothered to repeat, the Fuller gearbox was not included in the initial AEC V8 design brief.
Exactly what was stopping AEC going directly to Fuller US and asking them to meet the requirement and by passing all the UK subsidiaries.Bearing in mind that if Fuller could meet all the combined demands of the US assemblers I’m sure they could have fitted AEC in somehow. Meanwhile it’s bleedin obvious that they couldn’t have met the ‘design brief’ for 300 hp + capability with anything that could fit under the Ergo cab and the resulting lack of torque caused by the resulting silly stroke measurement.Which is the real reason for the failure of the project.Not the bs idea that they couldn’t find a gearbox for it if they’d have designed it properly using the right engine and the right cab.
Carryfast:
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 …
Carryfast:
ERF:
Carryfast:
cav551:
…By the time production commenced the close ratio Fuller 0600 series box was being fitted by other manufacturers - the clue to its torque capacity being in its name. AEC themselves did at a later date offer this as an option for the 760 powered Mandator, but notably not for the engine at its highest output rating. The only gearbox commonly fitted at the time with a higher torque rating was IIRC Fodens 12 speed which would have been an unlikely alliance.So in 1962 while it might have been possible to have produced an engine which produced more torque, there was a good reason not to do so at that time. That option being left to the planned AV800 and the follow ups which never materialised.
…Fuller couldn’t provide anything with more than a 600 lb/ft rating then what rating were they using in the 8v71 powered '65 KW as shown here ?.Bearing in mind that 12v71 Brockway 359’s weren’t unheard of by '66 either.
and what was Scammell using in the 8v71 powered Crusader.Number 1 off the line reportedly being an 8v71 powered 6x4 in '68 ?.
You really need to raise your sights here regarding what was available and when and whatever stopped AEC from putting a 320 hp,690 based,V8 in the 3VTG by '68-'69 it wasn’t because Fuller couldn’t have provided them with a box to handle it.
Carryfast, I really wish you would come to the realisation that Great Britain is not the United States of America.
In 1964 Fuller Transmissions had virtually no presence at all in Europe. By 1968 the Fuller twin countershaft RT and RTO 510 (soon to become the 610) transmissions had been introduced to Europe, and after a concerted effort from the importers, including their demonstration conversions of several existing production vehicles to Fuller RT and RTO 510 gearboxes, they began to get the attention of operators due to it’s drivability, compact proportion and light weight. Demand and reputation slowly began to grow for the Fuller. UK (and European) manufacturers started to take note, and began to offer the (by then) 610 as a production option with a carefully matched differential ratio. This required them to take on board full responsibility for service, spares and warranty of this new transmission - a massive undertaking, only made possible by Eaton Yale and Towne beginning to support and manufacture the Fuller 610 transmission at Worsley.
By the time that Fuller USA had developed and put into production the heavier duty twin countershaft RT and RTO 910 in the mid 1960’s, the AEC V8 project was already in it’s final stages of development. On paper the 910 is the gearbox best matched to the AEC V8 engine, however it was not a transmission supported by Eaton Yale and Towne (and wouldn’t be until 1969), and was both physically larger in size and heavier than AEC’s own D251 ten-speed splitter gearbox, which was already in production by 1968 and had already been chosen as a Mandator V8 production option.
Had the AEC V8 project succeeded, and higher output V8 engines come into production, be in no doubt that the Fuller 910 and then 9509 series would have been offered by AEC through the 1970’s. You could argue that AEC had actually predicted this by 1965, choosing to equip their new V8 engine with an SAE 1 flywheel housing, making a plethora of future heavy duty gearbox options possible.
So let’s get this right it was possible to get a 13 speed let alone 9 speed Fuller up to the job of handling the torque output of a 12v71 in '66 and Scammell managed to at least put a relevant transmission behind its 800 lb/ft 8v71 powered Crusader launched the same year as the V8 Mandator in 1968.But nothing more than 600 lb/ft had been set in stone by AEC before their V8 was put into production because,according to them,it was impossible to source the right transmission for more.So how were they possibly going to meet the 300 hp + target spec given to them by Group Engineering director at the start in around '64 and from that point,having crippled the thing with insufficient torque potential from the start ?.IE where was this supposed torque increase going to magically appear from with the silly 114 mm stroke without breaking the engine ?.As for the excuses given there related to transmission sourcing,no I don’t buy it sounds like total bs to me.IE if they knew the product support was going to be there in 1970’s then they knew it could be there in the 1960’s ‘if’ they’d have bothered to ask for it.
Or of course the relevant governments wouldn’t have allowed them to import the right kit assuming a plot to make sure the Brits didn’t throw a spanner in the works’ of Europe’s post war debt repayments.On that note it all looks like a back door trade embargo to make sure we didn’t get ahead of the foreign competition to me.Bearing in mind that the competition like Scania obviously didn’t need to ask for Fuller’s help here unlike AEC.
Yawn
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
