[zb]
anorak:
Yes I really should listen to those who know better in that the AEC V8 could have easily sorted out the Scania 140 given a just few more months time and effort making a few tweaks to the basically world beating short stroke design.The same with the TL12 in the case of the T45 v Rolls and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ how Leyland’s top designers all seemed to have agreed with me for some reason and given up on AEC’s brilliant designs so easily on both counts. 
Just a quick digresion… I hope!
Since we keep getting the Detroit powered Scammell Crusader rammed down our throats, How many of these were actually sold? How many were 4x2 to run at the 32 ton UK plated maxium GVW of the time? Leaving how many were 6x4 for heavy haulage? and how many were for the military?
James.908:
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
Gingerfold and Mr ERF, thank you for a very enjoyable thread, I’m was just a run of the mill lorry driver and driven both mercury and mandator (great driving position by the way)…but was never really intrested in bores pistons and conrods. .but this thread has really got me into the V8 mandator…so once again thanks for the quality information. …all this after learning to avoid a certain expert poster
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Seeing a reference to yet another piece of American hardware (Brockway) which was supposedly sooo much better than anything the UK could produce reminds us that the UK and it haulage industry was a very conservative market. Unknown and untried products, however popular elsewhere, were viewed with suspicion and distrust. The average UK operator knew little about the ‘trucking’ scene in the US apart from the fact that the Yanks called a lorry a truck, theirs were nearly all bonneted and it was rumoured that yankee trucks didn’t have brakes on the front axle. If there was any more, it was probably those which stories were told about the ridiculous idea that to get the things going one had to work like a demon at stirring TWO gear levers at the same time. Hauliers sucked on their pipe, viewed the UK road network in comparison to what they had heard about Interstates and dismissed the products as good ol’ yankee yeee haaa in a stetson…and vowed to let someone else try out these new fangled contraptions. Meanwhile they rang their UK manufacturer’s dealer, or in the case of even the moderate size operators, they rang the factory direct.
So if AEC or whoever had decided to fit say a Spicer or Mack transmission then they would quite probably have had a compound full of vehicles they couldn’t sell - at least not at the price they wanted to sell them at. One only has to look at the Bedford Detroit sales and the proportion at a later date of Seddon Atkinsons sold with Spicer gearboxes; the negative comments made about Leyland T45 vehicles with Spicer gearboxes; the popularity among operators for fitting replacing the original Spicer clutch with a Lipe Rollway when the time came for renewal.
cav551:
Just a quick digresion… I hope!Since we keep getting the Detroit powered Scammell Crusader rammed down our throats, How many of these were actually sold? How many were 4x2 to run at the 32 ton UK plated maxium GVW of the time? Leaving how many were 6x4 for heavy haulage? and how many were for the military?
Great so assuming that 800 lb/ft and 318 hp was considered too much for a 32 tonner in the day what was the point of the AEC V8 bearing in mind its 300 hp + design requirement ?. In which case exactly where was the demand for and what was the point of this fragile 12-13 litre short stroke V8 with similar torque output to a 690.Other than maybe a few AEC fan boys who’d buy anything with an AEC badge on it and then went crying to Leyland for their money back when it predictably didn’t work. 
cav551:
Seeing a reference to yet another piece of American hardware (Brockway) which was supposedly sooo much better than anything the UK could produce reminds us that the UK and it haulage industry was a very conservative market. Unknown and untried products, however popular elsewhere, were viewed with suspicion and distrust. The average UK operator knew little about the ‘trucking’ scene in the US apart from the fact that the Yanks called a lorry a truck, theirs were nearly all bonneted and it was rumoured that yankee trucks didn’t have brakes on the front axle. If there was any more, it was probably those which stories were told about the ridiculous idea that to get the things going one had to work like a demon at stirring TWO gear levers at the same time. Hauliers sucked on their pipe, viewed the UK road network in comparison to what they had heard about Interstates and dismissed the products as good ol’ yankee yeee haaa in a stetson…and vowed to let someone else try out these new fangled contraptions. Meanwhile they rang their UK manufacturer’s dealer, or in the case of even the moderate size operators, they rang the factory direct.
Yep.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ all gutless unreliable junk.Much better to go for a good old fashioned Brit designed V8 with a 114 mm stroke purposely designed with less than 600 lb/ft of torque so as not to over load its transmission with the bonus that it fitted under the state of the art dustcart cab. 
cav551:
Just a quick digresion… I hope!Since we keep getting the Detroit powered Scammell Crusader rammed down our throats, How many of these were actually sold? How many were 4x2 to run at the 32 ton UK plated maxium GVW of the time? Leaving how many were 6x4 for heavy haulage? and how many were for the military?
I don’t think any were. As I understand it the Detroit option was for Crusaders exported to places like Australia. The military in UK used the Rolls Royce Eagle 305 in their 6x4 units. The Eagle 280 was the standard engine in 4x2s. Robert
railstaff:
[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.
This site gives a perfect potted history of the Mack V8s:
forums.aths.org/176810/Antique-Engine-specs
I have copied the history until the first 16 litre engines onto this picture:
It makes fascinating reading, especially in the context of this:
scania.com/group/en/wp-cont … -50164.pdf
The Scania document says, “The new Scania 14.2-litre V8 engine had no genuine forerunner in the diesel engine world.” Hahaha!!! The first Mack V8 of those dimensions was launched in 1960! Mack were launching a Maxidyne version in 1969- in other words, as Scania introduced their 140, Mack was building the engine that went into the 141! Whatever the truth of the story, the Swedes were the winners in sales: Their version had sales of 170,000, against about 32,000 for Mack’s, according to each document.
What has this got to do with the AEC V8? Mack fans (I am one 
) will proudly state that the first “high torque rise” engine was the Maxidyne. When it was launched in 1966, its high torque peak and low maximum power speed were unprecedented, and those features became the template for all automotive diesel developments thereafter. The pre-Maxidyne V8s were all 5x5.5" (127x140) engines, similar to the DS14. The Maxidyne V8s were launched in 1969 , effectively superceding the earlier engine (which soldiered on until 1972). Now have a closer look at the specification of that engine, the ENDT865- the new, high torque/low speed V8 had completely different geometry to the old one- it was oversquare! That’s right- to generate more torque, they increased the bore and reduced the stroke! Obviously, the higher torque came from Mack’s clever use of the turbocharger, but it leaves the notion that, had AEC persisted with their turbocharged V8, they would not have been hampered by their base engine geometry, in the pursuit of a torque curve to match their competitors.
The question, why would they design an engine with the potential to produce 300+ hp? And from a person that claims to have inside knowledge of r&d. Hmmm, let me think, could it be the blindingly obvious reason? Namely to allow the new design a life span longer than it’s first incarnation. Even an idiot can see that, surely?
Nobody in their right minds builds an engine that is as powerful as it could ever be right from the off. Any further power increases would require a new design, new research and development and new tooling. So a margin is built into the early engines to allow for power increases over its lifespan.
We all know that the development part of the AEC V8 didn’t happen, so no need to remind anybody about its penchant for self destruction.
To answer another question, how many DD engines went into 4x2 32ton Crusaders? I am guessing here, but I would say that there wasn’t many, in fact I would go as far as saying, less than one…
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
To answer another question, how many DD engines went into 4x2 32ton Crusaders? I am guessing here, but I would say that there wasn’t many, in fact I would go as far as saying, less than one…Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Precisely! As I understand it, all the Detroit-engined Crusaders were Antipodean export 6x4 heavy-haulers with 15-speed Fuller 'boxes - ie completely irrelevant to the discussion in hand. Robert
Robert, never let facts stand in the way of a good argument.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
Robert, never let facts stand in the way of a good argument.
Oh wait what possible reason could Leyland have had for not offering the Crusader in 4 x 2 8 v 71 form.Let me guess what do you think that would have done to the business case for the AEC V8 ?. 
When it was much better to keep the 8 v 71 Crusader only in 6 x 4 form for export and might as well put the 6 cylinder Rolls in it for those who rightly preferred that ( which still had more power than the AEC V8 would ever make ) and struggle on with the AEC V8 and the 500 with the AEC and the 500 both losing whatever profits that the Crusader was making in warranty claims.
As for the 140 if only Scania had reduced the stroke of its V8 to 114 mm or even followed Mack’s lead just think of all the missed opportunities based on the idea that the shorter the stroke the more torque it can supposedly make.Absolutely never stop the AEC fan boys from letting the facts stand in the way of a good argument.
[zb]
anorak:
Now have a closer look at the specification of that engine, the ENDT865- the new, high torque/low speed V8 had completely different geometry to the old one- it was oversquare! That’s right- to generate more torque, they increased the bore and reduced the stroke! Obviously, the higher torque came from Mack’s clever use of the turbocharger, but it leaves the notion that, had AEC persisted with their turbocharged V8, they would not have been hampered by their base engine geometry, in the pursuit of a torque curve to match their competitors.
Seems a bit selective in ignoring the 998 versions.While,unlike Mack,Scania’s development of its V8 has always been a case of concentrating on progressively making very considerable increases in its stroke from the original with just a 3mm increase in bore size to date
Which leaves the question what made Mack drop its interest in the V8 configuration while Scania still sees plenty of life in it ?. 
cav551:
Just a quick digresion… I hope!Since we keep getting the Detroit powered Scammell Crusader rammed down our throats, How many of these were actually sold? How many were 4x2 to run at the 32 ton UK plated maxium GVW of the time? Leaving how many were 6x4 for heavy haulage? and how many were for the military?
Great minds think alike cav551, yesterday I actually emailed the BCVM archives to make an appointment to go through all the Scammell Crusader build sheets and find out because the same question had crossed my mind. Unfortunately the museum is closed until later this year as it is undergoing a complete refurbishment. But I will definitely be going. I would wager that sales of Detroit Diesel V8 powered Crusaders into the civilian market didn’t reach three figures because I can never recall seeing one or hearing one. I do know what that engine sound like (noisy and harsh) from my frequent trips to Dublin in the 1980s where most of the buses had that screaming banshee of an engine in them.
Oh, and Carryfast, when the BCVM re-opens you are welcome to join me and I’ll pay for all your travelling expenses, overnight hotel accommodation and any other incidental expenses you accrue. It will be an education for you seeing what documents exist and what they can actually tell you, instead of googling the internet and believing a lot of the mis-information and rubbish that is on the internet.
[zb]
anorak:
…the new, high torque/low speed V8 had completely different geometry to the old one- it was oversquare! That’s right- to generate more torque, they increased the bore and reduced the stroke! Obviously, the higher torque came from Mack’s clever use of the turbocharger, but it leaves the notion that, had AEC persisted with their turbocharged V8, they would not have been hampered by their base engine geometry, in the pursuit of a torque curve to match their competitors.
This is very significant in this story. It is precisely the opinion expressed to me by engine designers who retrospectively examined the AEC V8 design.
What was the difference between a civilian Crusader and say a Guy big J obvously the Crusader was taller much like the Marathon compared with the standard Ergo but you could spec the Guy much the same as you could spec a Crusader it was just easier to get into and you had a choice of more engines to suit your needs than you did with the Crusader .I would guess more Guy big Js were sold than Crusaders in the civilian markets
ramone:
What was the difference between a civilian Crusader and say a Guy big J obvously the Crusader was taller much like the Marathon compared with the standard Ergo but you could spec the Guy much the same as you could spec a Crusader it was just easier to get into and you had a choice of more engines to suit your needs than you did with the Crusader .I would guess more Guy big Js were sold than Crusaders in the civilian markets
Scammell in the mid-1960s wasn’t in a good place for orders in its non-heavy haulage civilian markets, hence its offering of the Handyman, Trunker, and Crusader models. The 1965 C&U Regs killed off the Highwayman bonneted configuration artic, very popular with the oil companies. Likewise, the same legislation put paid to the Scarab and its short-lived successor, the Townsman. The Scarab had been a steady earner for Scammell with 14,000 produced for BR over about a 15 years period. Arguably with civilian versions of the Crusader Scammell was offering customers exactly the same model choices as AEC. Scammell had the Handyman, a good no frills tractor unit with either a Leyland Power Plus O.680, at 200 bhp, or a Gardner 6LX 150, or 6LXB 180. The early Crusader offered Scammell civilian customers a more powerful engine option with the RR Eagle 220. AEC offered customers the basic Mandator with AV760 at between 205 and 226 bhp, depending what the operator specified, or the more powerful V8.
The military spec Crusaders have really no place in any comparison with the Mandator V8, it is a completely spurious argument. Maybe a different case with the Mammoth Major 6x4 V8 if it had entered volume production, but as only 6 or 7 were made it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Scammell was always more of an assembler for most models except the Mechanical Horse and Scarab, where it did produce its own 2 litre side valve petrol engine, gearbox and axle. In the 1930s it did make the petrol engines for the two 100 tonner heavy haulers. Scammell’s business model for the first 30 years of its existence was totally different to that of AEC, and indeed Leyland. It made gearboxes and axles but never had ambitions to design, development, and manufacture its own Diesel engines. It specialised in niche products and military specification vehicles. Personally I have a lot of respect for Scammell and its products, it did what it did very well.
Just for interest (…hopefully!) here is a very late (September 1969) comparison sheet for the two engines offered in the 2VTG4R Mandator V8 and 2VTG6R Mammoth Major V8.
These ‘high datum’ models were predominantly aimed at export markets, but a very small quantity of both did find their way onto UK roads, as ‘gingerfold’ has confirmed.
The AV800 engine was down-rated from the AV801 specification purely by it’s fuel injection pump. The AV800 used the same injection pump as the later AV740’s, with smaller delivery elements than the pump fitted to the AV801.
Both AV800 and AV801 engines were the same 13.1 litre (800 Cu/in) capacity with 135mm bore.
I should perhaps add that the records confirm that AV801 powered Mandator V8’s were also available to order, and did go out to New Zealand in particular.
Carryfast:
Yep.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ all gutless unreliable junk.Much better to go for a good old fashioned Brit designed V8 with a 114 mm stroke purposely designed with less than 600 lb/ft of torque so as not to over load its transmission with the bonus that it fitted under the state of the art dustcart cab.
So apart from the ■■■■■■■ 642 which appeared in some Guy, Seddon and ERF vehicles, how about you reminding us of the market penetration of other US components in UK lorry sales at the time … early 1960s?
You can have the most technically advanced product ever known to man, but if the customers don’t want it there will not be any sales. Now I’ll take an uninformed punt the following:
Does the UK market see a similar uptake in percentage of householders following the US trend for ‘garbage disposal’ units attached to the kitchen sink waste pipe? I’ll guess not.
Quote Carryfast: "Bearing in mind that the competition like Scania obviously didn’t need to ask for Fuller’s help here unlike AEC. "
Do please remind us about the Scania 10 speed splitter gearbox of the period and its reputation for reliability…
Im out of work and thinking of becoming a fire engine tester anyone got any advice , I know nothing about anything but Im wiling to not listen to reason or facts from anyone who knows what they are talking about
