railstaff:
■■■■■■■ most certainly don’t want to get in to a power race,saying that they don’t want to do anything anymore so it seems.What do Volvo offer now then in the states with White?
Volvo offer the 13 litre with different power outputs from 375 to 500 horse power. Mack uses the same engine.
cav551:
As said, like in many walks of life, a sensible business doesn’t jump in feet first at the merest rumour about a new to the market product’s reputation. That being particularly true if the reputation is based upon different operating conditions (USvUK). That business has a look around and lets someone else try it first. Once favourable and verifiable reports from trusted sources became available interest is aroused. Which is exactly what happens and happened.So in this instance ERF are reported as being the first, in 1964, to offer as a UK production option the LV tractor unit equipped with the Fuller Roadranger gearbox . One source mentions that Atkinson fitted a few ‘Fuller’ gearboxes in 1958 without specifying whether these were for the domestic market. Presumably done either to test the market or limited to export models.
It was clear that Fuller was able to provide AEC with a proven reliable transmission that could work happily with the torque input of up to at least the 12v71 as of 1966 in far more hostile US terrain all they needed to do was make a phone call and ask for it.
So in this case they stood back and let Scania take the laurels with their 140 instead of being first with a 130 x 142 V8 with 13 or 9 speed fuller in the 3 VGT .Doesn’t exactly fit the script of forward thinking innovation.Especially when AEC obviously had to go whingeing to Stokes for him to not allow the 8 v 71 Crusader to take out their gutless screamer Mandator dustcart thereby helping to bring down the whole truck division with the resulting warranty claims. 
railstaff:
Carryfast:
[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 ?.
Mack didn’t drop interest in the E9 at all.When Volvo took hold of Mack after the take over of Renault,they shelved Mack power train group and tucked them up with the MP10(D16D Volvo).Seemingly though Ozz hauliers prefer the E9.
Did you actually read the article ?.Hero to hand grenade 
virtually overnight when they tried to go for later Scania type outputs obviously using the original Scania 140 stroke let alone the shorter stroke obsolete 865.So what chance did Leyland have of getting any realistic reliable torque output from the AEC’s 114 mm v the 140’s 140 mm.Oh wait that would take an understanding of the importance of the leverage side of the torque equation which obviously doesn’t exist in AEC enthusiast thinking to this day.Unlike Scania’s designers.
ChrisArbon:
“What made Mack drop their highly regarded V8?” was the very question I asked a retired diesel design engineer at the old Mack Research and Design complex at Allentown in Pennsylvania. The place is now a museum and heritage centre; Tom, the engineer was my guide for the museum tour and knew his stuff.
“We didn’t need it anymore. We were getting over 400 horse power from a straight-six.” Was his simple answer.
It seems strange how Scania didn’t agree and developed their V8 along the lines of progressive increases in its stroke measurement to obvious effect regarding torque outputs.Also seems to be some evidence out there that the US market would welcome the introduction of the Scania V8 as a loose option.
Carryfast:
cav551:
As said, like in many walks of life, a sensible business doesn’t jump in feet first at the merest rumour about a new to the market product’s reputation. That being particularly true if the reputation is based upon different operating conditions (USvUK). That business has a look around and lets someone else try it first. Once favourable and verifiable reports from trusted sources became available interest is aroused. Which is exactly what happens and happened.So in this instance ERF are reported as being the first, in 1964, to offer as a UK production option the LV tractor unit equipped with the Fuller Roadranger gearbox . One source mentions that Atkinson fitted a few ‘Fuller’ gearboxes in 1958 without specifying whether these were for the domestic market. Presumably done either to test the market or limited to export models.
It was clear that Fuller was able to provide AEC with a proven reliable transmission that could work happily with the torque input of up to at least the 12v71 as of 1966 in far more hostile US terrain all they needed to do was make a phone call and ask for it.
So in this case they stood back and let Scania take the laurels with their 140 instead of being first with a 130 x 142 V8 with 13 or 9 speed fuller in the 3 VGT .Doesn’t exactly fit the script of forward thinking innovation.Especially when AEC obviously had to go whingeing to Stokes for him to not allow the 8 v 71 Crusader to take out their gutless screamer Mandator dustcart thereby helping to bring down the whole truck division with the resulting warranty claims.
IIRC you very strongly advocate LPG as the fuel and a torqueconverter planetary geabox transmission.This may possibly be the way forward in 10 years time. If that were to be the case why do you think that no manufacturer is pushing that combination seriously at the moment?
Might it just possibly be that no one wants to buy it?
gingerfold:
Carryfast:
As for the museum trip.No let’s just pitch the surviving 8v71 powered Crusaders against their remaining AEC counterparts and see which ones come out on top.It’s my bet that there are more of those survivors in the case of the Crusader than the AEC.On that note can you actually post any AEC V8 examples that can actually haul a proper load up a decent hill without falling apart as opposed to an empty trailer on a flat piece of dual carriageway.This sounds closer to what a Scania V8 would sound like when it’s pulling under load.Than the previous AEC vid which as expected sounded more like the bag of nails Perkins etc that I’d heard in numerous lesser fire trucks than ours over the years.youtube.com/watch?v=GX_R8eogw1Q
As for the Irish buses did you actually check they were 8v71 powered and not 6 or 8v53 ?.
Yes I’ii let you have that one CF, the Dublin buses were 6V-71 powered with Allison V730 auto gearboxes. I understand that they were a Bombardier design and some 366 double deckers were built, the first ones entering service in 1981 and the last were withdrawn in 2001.
The list of Crusaders known to exist is, I’m afraid, only nine vehicles, so fewer than surviving Mandator V8s, so you’ll lose you wager. And not all of them will have the Detroit Diesel V8. Considering that the Crusader had a 20 year production life (last military spec. vehicles) compared with less than 2 years for the Mandator V8…
The list of Crusaders is:
1973 OEU 436M
1977 OBU 152P (6x4)
1978 Q270 SBD
1978 JRU 865V
1979 FLW 608J
1978 HVW 121T
1979 ELW 608J
1979 ULA ■■?
1979 JVM 906V
Bearing in mind that there were no uk spec 4x2 8v71 Crusaders and that list doesn’t include export market survivors that doesn’t exactly help with any comparison of the relative merits of 8v71 Crusader v AEC V8 as shown in the example I posted.As I’ve said the fact that there were no 4x2 UK spec 32t 8v71 Crusaders seems to be as much conspiracy as the fact that there was no 130x142 V8,13 speed Fuller,3 VTG put on the market before the 140 got there.Surely there can be no doubt that based on the output for engine size and transmission advantages of the 8v71 Crusader that it had to be the better truck and ( would have ) made the V8 Mandator totally pointless had it been offered in the uk spec 4x2 configuration.
While the fact that I’ve found a working example of an 8v71 export market Crusader still up to hauling a considerable load but there seems to be no AEC V8 counterparts left there speaks for itself.
Much as I admire Fuller gearboxes, it seems strange to me that AEC didn’t further develop the excellent Thornycroft gearbox technology at their disposal. Everyone I’ve ever talked to who used the later constant-mesh 6-speed (12 with splitter or o/d) AEC 'box reports that it was a joy to use. Wouldn’t a beefed-up version of that have satisfied the need for a proper 'box, built in-house by a British manufacturer? Or have I missed something and they did that anyway (in which case why is CF whingeing). Roberto
The TET/AEC D203 'box morphed into an Eaton product at a later date.
railstaff:
…Makes interesting reading,ive seen the Mack spec sheet on an American forum before,they didn’t believe the Swedish BS either.Quite interesting to see the DS14 and END865 next to each other.The three main differences are,DS14 has lateral bolts into the main housings,the 865 has none.
DS14 has single heads,the 865 has four heads,two either side.
Later 865 had four valve per cylinder,maybe explain the bore increase.
It’s the earlier END864 that has the same bore and stroke as the DS14. The ENDT865 is the later engine, which had different bore/stroke dimensions, although its swept volume was almost identical. The asserion of the Mack enthusiasts is that END864 engines went to Södertälje, and the Scania engineers used them as the basis of their work. That is very believable. Somewhere else on those Mack forums, however, someone says that the DS14 used END864 castings, at some stage. Is that true, or just fanciful extrapolation?
ramone:
dave docwra:
ramone:
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
My Mate Sam previously from Pontypandy now living in Leatherhead can offer advice on testing fire engines, he was also an engine designer guru in his previous job…
Is he in an institution or would he be approachable
There is an institution involved & he is to be approached with a big stick…
dave docwra:
ramone:
dave docwra:
ramone:
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 aboutMy Mate Sam previously from Pontypandy now living in Leatherhead can offer advice on testing fire engines, he was also an engine designer guru in his previous job…
Is he in an institution or would he be approachable
There is an institution involved & he is to be approached with a big stick…
Aye and accompanied with two big Blokes in white coats and Matron and a Vet with the Horse tranquiliser Bewick.
newmercman:
And I must point out that the video of the Crusader pulling up a hill sounds absolutely nothing like a V8 Scania, nothing at all.
To be fair it’s closer to the Scania than a Perkins.
Dennis,
You wish this animal is far more than thick skinned
E.W.
cav551:
IIRC you very strongly advocate LPG as the fuel and a torqueconverter planetary geabox transmission.This may possibly be the way forward in 10 years time. If that were to be the case why do you think that no manufacturer is pushing that combination seriously at the moment?Might it just possibly be that no one wants to buy it?
In the case of LPG it’s more a case that none of the big manufacturers seem to want to make the very simple option of offering customers the choice of a spark ignition and LPG fuelled version of their engines.Why is anyone’s guess.Instead of which customers are left with the choice of being lumbered with a dirty expensive fuel combined with all the costs of cleaning up the resulting emissions.A bit like the situation of the choice between the AEC V8 instead of a Scania 140 league truck or even 8v71 Crusader.IE save a penny to spend a pound by all concerned.Although in the case of the Mandator it was AEC who picked up the costs of that thinking more than operators with resulting affects on Leyland Group’s balance sheet.
As for transmissions no I think the constant mesh 18 speed manual fuller is a case of it ain’t broke so don’t fix it.Although torque converter type trans is obviously a case of horses for courses in the case of heavy haulage special types applications.
ERF-NGC-European:
Much as I admire Fuller gearboxes, it seems strange to me that AEC didn’t further develop the excellent Thornycroft gearbox technology at their disposal. Everyone I’ve ever talked to who used the later constant-mesh 6-speed (12 with splitter or o/d) AEC 'box reports that it was a joy to use. Wouldn’t a beefed-up version of that have satisfied the need for a proper 'box, built in-house by a British manufacturer? Or have I missed something and they did that anyway (in which case why is CF whingeing). Roberto
I’m only ‘whingeing’ about the development budget wasted on a predictably flawed V8,which also didn’t ( couldn’t ) meet its 300 hp + design spec,followed by all the resulting warranty costs.While also standing back and allowing a foreign competitor to claim priceless halo product publicity laurels.It seems that part of AEC’s reasoning,for making an unreliable torqueless screamer,was because they supposedly didn’t have a transmission up to the job of handling more.In addition to a seeming design requirement for the engine to fit under the Ergo low line cab.So they decided to effectively apply limited formula race car engine thinking to a truck engine with predictable results.When if they really had to do a 300 hp compromised cheap V8 powered truck then the Crusader obviously did it better but for some reason Leyland also counted out that option.In addition to counting out going for the 140 with a proper V8 and Fuller box all put in the 3 VTG.
So not whingeing more just disbelief.Hence my question of conspiracy v ■■■■ up.
[zb]
anorak:railstaff:
Later 865 had four valve per cylinder,maybe explain the bore increase.It’s the earlier END864 that has the same bore and stroke as the DS14. The ENDT865 is the later engine, which had different bore/stroke dimensions, although its swept volume was almost identical. The asserion of the Mack enthusiasts is that END864 engines went to Södertälje, and the Scania engineers used them as the basis of their work. That is very believable. Somewhere else on those Mack forums, however, someone says that the DS14 used END864 castings, at some stage. Is that true, or just fanciful extrapolation?
The Scania seems to fit 4 valves in a 130 mm bore at least.
As for any link between the 864 v DS14 blocks at all other than their respective bore stroke measurements doubtful going by these examples.Strangely the 864 looks like it’s been designed as a longer stroke block than the DS 14. 
ERF-NGC-European:
Much as I admire Fuller gearboxes, it seems strange to me that AEC didn’t further develop the excellent Thornycroft gearbox technology at their disposal. Everyone I’ve ever talked to who used the later constant-mesh 6-speed (12 with splitter or o/d) AEC 'box reports that it was a joy to use. Wouldn’t a beefed-up version of that have satisfied the need for a proper 'box, built in-house by a British manufacturer? Or have I missed something and they did that anyway (in which case why is CF whingeing). Roberto
They did Robert, but as has been said before, never let facts stand in the way of a good argument!.
The basic 6-speed o/d gearbox available in the AV760 Mandator was the TET D203 with it’s 1-3/4" input shaft. This, at 615 lb-ft, had a design torque capacity very slightly higher than service torque capacity of the ONLY Fuller Roadranger in production in the UK in 1968, the RT and RTO610. Both were designed for use in service with engines developing up to 600lb-ft torque.
To fit the D203 to the V8 engine required an extended selector housing to allow the change rod to clear the RH cylinder bank. This modified gearbox was designated the D236 and it was fitted to all Mandator V8’s from the start of production until early in 1969.
When the higher output AV800/801 powered V8’s were produced, TET increased the torque capacity of the D236 by beefing up the front end bearings and fitting a 2" input shaft. This gearbox was the D250, and it was fitted to all subsequent V8’s that had the 6-speed gearbox option, including the AV740’s.
Higher capacity 6-speeds were already on the drawing board at TET in 1970, and some of these would go on to be used by Guy in the Big J, AEC/Leyland in the Marathon (behind the L12 engine) and by Scammell in the Routeman, Handyman and Trunker.
By 1976 the last version (to the best of my knowledge) of the old 6-speed was being produced, by this time Eaton had taken over at TET, and this gearbox (still with a 2" input shaft) featured needle roller bearings on the mainshaft gears (as opposed to the bronze bushes of the D236 and D250), higher torque capacity gears and taper roller bearings (as opposed to roller bearings) on the mainshaft and layshaft. This gearbox was the D273 and was a Scammell option right to the end of Routeman production.
ERF:
ERF-NGC-European:
Much as I admire Fuller gearboxes, it seems strange to me that AEC didn’t further develop the excellent Thornycroft gearbox technology at their disposal. Everyone I’ve ever talked to who used the later constant-mesh 6-speed (12 with splitter or o/d) AEC 'box reports that it was a joy to use. Wouldn’t a beefed-up version of that have satisfied the need for a proper 'box, built in-house by a British manufacturer? Or have I missed something and they did that anyway (in which case why is CF whingeing). RobertoThey did Robert, but as has been said before, never let facts stand in the way of a good argument!.
The basic 6-speed o/d gearbox available in the AV760 Mandator was the TET D203 with it’s 1-3/4" input shaft. This, at 615 lb-ft, had a design torque capacity very slightly higher than service torque capacity of the ONLY Fuller Roadranger in production in the UK in 1968, the RT and RTO610. Both were designed for use in service with engines developing up to 600lb-ft torque.
To fit the D203 to the V8 engine required an extended selector housing to allow the change rod to clear the RH cylinder bank. This modified gearbox was designated the D236 and it was fitted to all Mandator V8’s from the start of production until early in 1969.
When the higher output AV800/801 powered V8’s were produced, TET increased the torque capacity of the D236 by beefing up the front end bearings and fitting a 2" input shaft. This gearbox was the D250, and it was fitted to all subsequent V8’s that had the 6-speed gearbox option, including the AV740’s.
Higher capacity 6-speeds were already on the drawing board at TET in 1970, and some of these would go on to be used by Guy in the Big J, AEC/Leyland in the Marathon (behind the L12 engine) and by Scammell in the Routeman, Handyman and Trunker.
By 1976 the last version (to the best of my knowledge) of the old 6-speed was being produced, by this time Eaton had taken over at TET, and this gearbox (still with a 2" input shaft) featured needle roller bearings on the mainshaft gears (as opposed to the bronze bushes of the D236 and D250), higher torque capacity gears and taper roller bearings (as opposed to roller bearings) on the mainshaft and layshaft. This gearbox was the D273 and was a Scammell option right to the end of Routeman production.
What a superbly full answer, ‘ERF’; and most heartening too. Many thanks for that!
Robert 
This is a question from someone who knows absolutely nothing about gearbox or engine workings ,but wasnt the AEC boxes a slow change, wasnt the old saying you could roll a cig up whilst changing up . I`m thinking that you would lose momentum whilst waiting for the revs to drop or am I missing something … I have my hard hat on
ramone:
This is a question from someone who knows absolutely nothing about gearbox or engine workings ,but wasnt the AEC boxes a slow change, wasnt the old saying you could roll a cig up whilst changing up . I`m thinking that you would lose momentum whilst waiting for the revs to drop or am I missing something … I have my hard hat on
Not driven one personally but those drivers of ours who had AEC Marshall’s before the Fodens arrived in the fleet reckoned that whatever gear you had at the bottom of a hill you couldn’t change up again until the top as it was such a slow change? No such problem with a Foden of course…
Pete.
