railstaff:
This gets better,an expert on Macks v8 after spending ten minutes on you tube,ever seen one in the flesh.Maybe you should look at the production run,because it wasn’t “virtually overnight” they were developed.As for your grenade comment,the odd one suffered head gaskets but that was more an issue of liner protrusion diminishing.Maybe you can tell the forum how many 140,s you have come across running at 110 ton day in,day out?
No the article definitely says hero to hand grenade and obviously not written by me.Which leaves the question why did Scania take a totally opposing development route regarding its V8 v Mack’s.Bearing in mind that,unlike the Mack V8,the Scania is still there putting out a reliable 2,500 lb/ft from around 1,000 rpm not to mention 730 hp.
And what opposing route would that be then?
Let us not forget what was Europes most powerful truck at one time.
The Renault AE560 Magnum with the Mack E9.A four valve development of the END 684.Dont remember that being a grenade.
Let’s get this right Mack go from 5.5 inch stroke of the 864 to the to the 5.0 inch stroke of the 865 ?.But stay with the 5.5 inch stroke of the 864 for the 998 ?.
Renault then supposedly go for a development of the longer stroke 864 not the shorter stroke 865 ?.
While Scania go with the 5.5 inch stroke of the 864 not the 5.0 inch stroke of the 865 from the start and also up to around the 500 hp level ?.Scania then go for 6 inch + stroke for further developments up to 730 hp ?.
While Mack and Renault blink first at the 5.5 inch stroke level and then walk away from the V8 configuration.How does any of that make show anything other than an opposite development mantra to Mack’s in that Scania only ever chose the 140 mm stroke of the 864 and then more, never less.Or Anorak’s ( and presumably your ) case that short stroke ( 5.0 inch ) let alone 114 mm was the way to go,as opposed to the 140 mm minimum chosen by Scania from day 1 and only ever more from that point ?.
Also have to say that I’m not convinced that there is any connection at all between the 864 and the Scania V8 at least.
ramone:
…As i`ve read this thread it seems quite apparent that Southall were instructed to build a compact V8 with dimensions to fit under the newly designed and built cab . Obviously when big brother tells you to do something you have little choice. They did exactly what they were told but the engine was put into production far too early. If Leyland had stepped back and taken notice of what was being said at Southall there could have been a different outcome …
An engineer in the MD’s chair will engineer the firm’s future. A salesman…
Isn’t this the same ‘salesman’ that went through an engineering apprenticeship at Leyland and who was then given a leadership role over REME field engineering operations v his German counterparts in time of war ?.While wasn’t it Fogg and Roberts who were the two most vocal and enthusiastic supporters of the AEC V8 project ?.
With you being the king of conspiracy theories wouldnt you think that if the orders had come from head office to launch the V8 and a highly regarded contibutor on this thread who spent many hours researching the V8 ,and at the same time gets first hand accounts from the men that actually designed it saying exactly that they were horrified when they were told to put it into production may have been told what to say ..... or is that a conspiracy too far fetched. CM arrive and say tell us about the new engine "well to be fair its being launched far too early without proper testing its no where near production level yet but hey ho lets see hey? " … and of course the rest is history . Just like Scania should have launched the 16 litre V8 instead of using that 14 litre one for all those years . Hindsight again hey ?
ramone:
With you being the king of conspiracy theories wouldnt you think that if the orders had come from head office to launch the V8 and a highly regarded contibutor on this thread who spent many hours researching the V8 ,and at the same time gets first hand accounts from the men that actually designed it saying exactly that they were horrified when they were told to put it into production may have been told what to say ..... or is that a conspiracy too far fetched. CM arrive and say tell us about the new engine "well to be fair its being launched far too early without proper testing its no where near production level yet but hey ho lets see hey? " … and of course the rest is history . Just like Scania should have launched the 16 litre V8 instead of using that 14 litre one for all those years . Hindsight again hey ?
Firstly we’ve clearly got an inconsistency between Fryers saying to CM that they were ‘horrified’.But also saying they were actually delighted in gingerfold’s records ?. We’ve also got the clearly enthusiastic documented statements from both Roberts and Fogg as opposed to the relatively understated comments of Stokes,at the V8 Mandator launch party.
Also bearing in mind that if Stokes was,as keen as Roberts and Fogg obviously were,on the design and use of the AEC V8,don’t you think that Stokes would have ordered the termination of use of the 8v71 in the case of Scammell’s V8 Crusader requirements,to then be replaced solely by the AEC V8 ?.As opposed to what Roberts and Fogg etc possibly would have done if Stokes had said no we have to ditch the V8 Mandator and replace the whole project with a 4x2 8v71 Crusader option bearing in mind their stated enthusiasm.
The issue and question of why/how did Leyland Group go and stay with the 8v71 from the start in the Crusader but not use it to replace the Mandator V8 with a 4x2 version being the clue that the V8 Mandator was all about Fogg’s agenda not Stokes’.Bearing in mind that a 4x2 8v71 Crusader option seems to be the logical solution to the design requirement and makes the whole V8 Mandator project redundant and pointless.In which case Roberts and Fogg would have been expected to concur with that logical premise as opposed to their obvious ongoing enthusiasm for the V8 Mandator from the start.
In which case it’s more likely that it was Fogg and AEC who were pressurising Stokes than vice versa possibly with the implied threat of resignation of at least Fogg,Roberts and possibly Fryers,if Stokes didn’t go along with the doomed project.With the obvious implications of that in the newspaper and trade press headlines followed by the inevitable collapse of Leyland’s bankroll and shareholdings.While ironically even gingerfold doesn’t seem to blame Stokes in all this.Although it’s obvious that others like Anorak take the view that Stokes was to blame along the same old lines that Stokes wasn’t qualified for his job and it was all his fault.When the order to go for the V8 Mandator clearly came from Group Engineering office most likely Fogg,also bearing his form with the other lemon the 500 and confirmed by his comments at the launch.
Also bearing in mind that it would have been a lot easier for Roberts and Fryers to have given Fogg the ultimatum to terminate the project and take the Crusader option or else.‘If’ that is Roberts etc were as ‘horrified’ at Fogg’s obvious orders as we are led to believe ( doubtful )The conclusion seems clear in that it was AEC who saw the whole doomed project as being in their interests at the time and karma came back to bite them.While it’s obvious that to this day that AEC’s fan base seems to think that you can make a 114 mm stroke V8 do the same job as a 140 mm one which was the inherent flaw in the whole project which no end of tweaks or ‘development’ could have fixed.Including now the delusory idea that Mack’s example proves their case when it actually proves anything but.
As for Scania it’s obvious that their design gave them a much better and lower stressed starting point than AEC’s and which,unlike AEC’s,predictably worked.
ramone:
With you being the king of conspiracy theories wouldnt you think that if the orders had come from head office to launch the V8 and a highly regarded contibutor on this thread who spent many hours researching the V8 ,and at the same time gets first hand accounts from the men that actually designed it saying exactly that they were horrified when they were told to put it into production may have been told what to say ..... or is that a conspiracy too far fetched. CM arrive and say tell us about the new engine "well to be fair its being launched far too early without proper testing its no where near production level yet but hey ho lets see hey? " … and of course the rest is history . Just like Scania should have launched the 16 litre V8 instead of using that 14 litre one for all those years . Hindsight again hey ?
Firstly we’ve clearly got an inconsistency between Fryers saying to CM that they were ‘horrified’.But also saying they were actually delighted in gingerfold’s records ?. We’ve also got the clearly enthusiastic documented statements from both Roberts and Fogg as opposed to the relatively understated comments of Stokes,at the V8 Mandator launch party.
Also bearing in mind that if Stokes was,as keen as Roberts and Fogg obviously were,on the design and use of the AEC V8,don’t you think that Stokes would have ordered the termination of use of the 8v71 in the case of Scammell’s V8 Crusader requirements,to then be replaced solely by the AEC V8 ?.As opposed to what Roberts and Fogg etc possibly would have done if Stokes had said no we have to ditch the V8 Mandator and replace the whole project with a 4x2 8v71 Crusader option bearing in mind their stated enthusiasm.
The issue and question of why/how did Leyland Group go and stay with the 8v71 from the start in the Crusader but not use it to replace the Mandator V8 with a 4x2 version being the clue that the V8 Mandator was all about Fogg’s agenda not Stokes’.Bearing in mind that a 4x2 8v71 Crusader option seems to be the logical solution to the design requirement and makes the whole V8 Mandator project redundant and pointless.In which case Roberts and Fogg would have been expected to concur with that logical premise as opposed to their obvious ongoing enthusiasm for the V8 Mandator from the start.
In which case it’s more likely that it was Fogg and AEC who were pressurising Stokes than vice versa possibly with the implied threat of resignation of at least Fogg,Roberts and possibly Fryers,if Stokes didn’t go along with the doomed project.With the obvious implications of that in the newspaper and trade press headlines followed by the inevitable collapse of Leyland’s bankroll and shareholdings.While ironically even gingerfold doesn’t seem to blame Stokes in all this.Although it’s obvious that others like Anorak take the view that Stokes was to blame along the same old lines that Stokes wasn’t qualified for his job and it was all his fault.When the order to go for the V8 Mandator clearly came from Group Engineering office most likely Fogg,also bearing his form with the other lemon the 500 and confirmed by his comments at the launch.
Also bearing in mind that it would have been a lot easier for Roberts and Fryers to have given Fogg the ultimatum to terminate the project and take the Crusader option or else.‘If’ that is Roberts etc were as ‘horrified’ at Fogg’s obvious orders as we are led to believe ( doubtful )The conclusion seems clear in that it was AEC who saw the whole doomed project as being in their interests at the time and karma came back to bite them.While it’s obvious that to this day that AEC’s fan base seems to think that you can make a 114 mm stroke V8 do the same job as a 140 mm one which was the inherent flaw in the whole project which no end of tweaks or ‘development’ could have fixed.Including now the delusory idea that Mack’s example proves their case when it actually proves anything but.
As for Scania it’s obvious that their design gave them a much better and lower stressed starting point than AEC’s and which,unlike AEC’s,predictably worked.
So lets get this straight , an engineer a very senior one at that told the story to a well respected researcher of AEC , it doesnt fit with your theory so its all wrong. So Leyland (who did fit at least 1 Crusader with an AEC V8 ) should have replaced it with the V8 .Erm that`s exactly what they did but nobody over here wanted them,this is old ground with sales figures to prove it . A few went abroad but mainly to the military which they were intended for.
There’s a bit of fog wants dispersing here just to help CF. It concerns Dr Albert Fogg and Mr Arthur Fogg.
Dr Albert Fogg was Director of the Council of The Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) from its inception in 1946 until he resigned his position in August 1964 to become the full time Director of Research and Board Member of British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC).
Mr Arthur Fogg was Director and General Manager at AEC, and he moved to Leyland in 1969 as Director and General Manager of Leyland Motors, the truck division, and he replaced Ron Ellis.
Arthur Fogg had taken over at AEC from John Bowley, who originally put the V8 engine project into being. John Bowley had joined AEC from Guy, where he was General Manager.
So once again CF has shown his complete lack of knowledge of AEC and Leyland by quoting names and apportioning decisions to them when he didn’t even know who they were are what their roles in the organisation were.
gingerfold:
There’s a bit of fog wants dispersing here just to help CF. It concerns Dr Albert Fogg and Mr Arthur Fogg.
Dr Albert Fogg was Director of the Council of The Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) from its inception in 1946 until he resigned his position in August 1964 to become the full time Director of Research and Board Member of British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC).
Mr Arthur Fogg was Director and General Manager at AEC, and he moved to Leyland in 1969 as Director and General Manager of Leyland Motors, the truck division, and he replaced Ron Ellis.
Arthur Fogg had taken over at AEC from John Bowley, who originally put the V8 engine project into being. John Bowley had joined AEC from Guy, where he was General Manager.
So once again CF has shown his complete lack of knowledge of AEC and Leyland by quoting names and apportioning decisions to them when he didn’t even know who they were are what their roles in the organisation were.
But why would he , he never listens to facts if they don`t fit into his little world
gingerfold:
There’s a bit of fog wants dispersing here just to help CF. It concerns Dr Albert Fogg and Mr Arthur Fogg.
Dr Albert Fogg was Director of the Council of The Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) from its inception in 1946 until he resigned his position in August 1964 to become the full time Director of Research and Board Member of British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC).
Mr Arthur Fogg was Director and General Manager at AEC, and he moved to Leyland in 1969 as Director and General Manager of Leyland Motors, the truck division, and he replaced Ron Ellis.
Arthur Fogg had taken over at AEC from John Bowley, who originally put the V8 engine project into being. John Bowley had joined AEC from Guy, where he was General Manager.
So once again CF has shown his complete lack of knowledge of AEC and Leyland by quoting names and apportioning decisions to them when he didn’t even know who they were are what their roles in the organisation were.
But why would he , he never listens to facts if they don`t fit into his little world
What I would like to about Carryfast is,
Who ties his shoelaces in the morning?
railstaff:
This gets better,an expert on Macks v8 after spending ten minutes on you tube,ever seen one in the flesh.Maybe you should look at the production run,because it wasn’t “virtually overnight” they were developed.As for your grenade comment,the odd one suffered head gaskets but that was more an issue of liner protrusion diminishing.Maybe you can tell the forum how many 140,s you have come across running at 110 ton day in,day out?
No the article definitely says hero to hand grenade and obviously not written by me.Which leaves the question why did Scania take a totally opposing development route regarding its V8 v Mack’s.Bearing in mind that,unlike the Mack V8,the Scania is still there putting out a reliable 2,500 lb/ft from around 1,000 rpm not to mention 730 hp.
And what opposing route would that be then?
Let us not forget what was Europes most powerful truck at one time.
The Renault AE560 Magnum with the Mack E9.A four valve development of the END 684.Dont remember that being a grenade.
Let’s get this right Mack go from 5.5 inch stroke of the 864 to the to the 5.0 inch stroke of the 865 ?.But stay with the 5.5 inch stroke of the 864 for the 998 ?.
Renault then supposedly go for a development of the longer stroke 864 not the shorter stroke 865 ?.
While Scania go with the 5.5 inch stroke of the 864 not the 5.0 inch stroke of the 865 from the start and also up to around the 500 hp level ?.Scania then go for 6 inch + stroke for further developments up to 730 hp ?.
While Mack and Renault blink first at the 5.5 inch stroke level and then walk away from the V8 configuration.How does any of that make show anything other than an opposite development mantra to Mack’s in that Scania only ever chose the 140 mm stroke of the 864 and then more, never less.Or Anorak’s ( and presumably your ) case that short stroke ( 5.0 inch ) let alone 114 mm was the way to go,as opposed to the 140 mm minimum chosen by Scania from day 1 and only ever more from that point ?.
Also have to say that I’m not convinced that there is any connection at all between the 864 and the Scania V8 at least.
Are you mad?
It actually happened.
Going to do some painting now,i can have a more structural conversation with the toilet wall.
ramone:
With you being the king of conspiracy theories wouldnt you think that if the orders had come from head office to launch the V8 and a highly regarded contibutor on this thread who spent many hours researching the V8 ,and at the same time gets first hand accounts from the men that actually designed it saying exactly that they were horrified when they were told to put it into production may have been told what to say ..... or is that a conspiracy too far fetched. CM arrive and say tell us about the new engine "well to be fair its being launched far too early without proper testing its no where near production level yet but hey ho lets see hey? " … and of course the rest is history . Just like Scania should have launched the 16 litre V8 instead of using that 14 litre one for all those years . Hindsight again hey ?
Firstly we’ve clearly got an inconsistency between Fryers saying to CM that they were ‘horrified’.But also saying they were actually delighted in gingerfold’s records ?. We’ve also got the clearly enthusiastic documented statements from both Roberts and Arthur Fogg as opposed to the relatively understated comments of Stokes,at the V8 Mandator launch party.
Also bearing in mind that if Stokes was,as keen as Roberts and Fogg obviously were,on the design and use of the AEC V8,don’t you think that Stokes would have ordered the termination of use of the 8v71 in the case of Scammell’s V8 Crusader requirements,to then be replaced solely by the AEC V8 ?.As opposed to what Roberts and Fogg etc possibly would have done if Stokes had said no we have to ditch the V8 Mandator and replace the whole project with a 4x2 8v71 Crusader option bearing in mind their stated enthusiasm.
The issue and question of why/how did Leyland Group go and stay with the 8v71 from the start in the Crusader but not use it to replace the Mandator V8 with a 4x2 version being the clue that the V8 Mandator was all about Fogg’s agenda not Stokes’.Bearing in mind that a 4x2 8v71 Crusader option seems to be the logical solution to the design requirement and makes the whole V8 Mandator project redundant and pointless.In which case Roberts and Fogg would have been expected to concur with that logical premise as opposed to their obvious ongoing enthusiasm for the V8 Mandator from the start.
In which case it’s more likely that it was Fogg and AEC who were pressurising Stokes than vice versa possibly with the implied threat of resignation of at least Fogg,Roberts and possibly Fryers,if Stokes didn’t go along with the doomed project.With the obvious implications of that in the newspaper and trade press headlines followed by the inevitable collapse of Leyland’s bankroll and shareholdings.While ironically even gingerfold doesn’t seem to blame Stokes in all this.Although it’s obvious that others like Anorak take the view that Stokes was to blame along the same old lines that Stokes wasn’t qualified for his job and it was all his fault.When the order to go for the V8 Mandator clearly came from Group Engineering office most likely Fogg,also bearing his form with the other lemon the 500 and confirmed by his comments at the launch.
Also bearing in mind that it would have been a lot easier for Roberts and Fryers to have given Fogg the ultimatum to terminate the project and take the Crusader option or else.‘If’ that is Roberts etc were as ‘horrified’ at Fogg’s obvious orders as we are led to believe ( doubtful )The conclusion seems clear in that it was AEC who saw the whole doomed project as being in their interests at the time and karma came back to bite them.While it’s obvious that to this day that AEC’s fan base seems to think that you can make a 114 mm stroke V8 do the same job as a 140 mm one which was the inherent flaw in the whole project which no end of tweaks or ‘development’ could have fixed.Including now the delusory idea that Mack’s example proves their case when it actually proves anything but.
As for Scania it’s obvious that their design gave them a much better and lower stressed starting point than AEC’s and which,unlike AEC’s,predictably worked.
So lets get this straight , an engineer a very senior one at that told the story to a well respected researcher of AEC , it doesnt fit with your theory so its all wrong. So Leyland (who did fit at least 1 Crusader with an AEC V8 ) should have replaced it with the V8 .Erm that`s exactly what they did but nobody over here wanted them,this is old ground with sales figures to prove it . A few went abroad but mainly to the military which they were intended for.
There are two opposing stories told by Fryers one stating delight and ones stating horror at the project.Nothing to do with any theory of mine.
The Crusader was produced from the start with the 8v71.As for it ever being fitted with the AEC V8 the point was the AEC V8 obviously never made the grade in that application from Scammell’s point of view just as the TL12 never made the grade v the Rolls Eagle.Knowing Scammell that had nothing to do with any bs internal rivalry and everything to do with using what’s best for the job.
While if Stokes was supposedly the instigator of the AEC V8 fiasco and as keen on it as is being made out then he’d have obviously removed the choice of Scammell being able to use the 8v71 and forced them to use the AEC V8 instead.In which case the AEC V8 clearly wasn’t a Stokes driven agenda.He was left in the obvious position of damned if he cancelled it and damned if he didn’t.The fact that Stokes didn’t force the AEC V8 to be used by Scammell being the proof of his innocence of blame for the the doomed project.The fact that AEC’s design team didn’t at any point before 1968 tell the head of Leyland Group Engineering to let Scammell meet the spec with the V8 Crusader ( bearing in mind their supposed ‘horror’ at being told to resurrect the AEC V8 ) being proof of their blame for it together with that of obviously both of the Fogg’s.Not to mention Fryers’ reference to their ‘delight’ with the project.Also bearing in mind that Stokes was only on the board of directors never in charge of Group Engineering decisions,who are stated as sending the order out to AEC,with that job recently having been taken by Albert Fogg.You know the same Albert Fogg who instigated the 500 engine project so no surprise that he also would have been attracted by AEC’s over stressed V8 screamer.
Having said that Stokes does seem to have regarded Fogg highly to the point of putting him on the board of directors of the newly formed BLMC in 1968. In which case that would fit my theory that if Stokes is to blame in any way it can only be that he was just a puppet in a much larger agenda to take out Leyland Group to benefit the foreign competition.The Fogg’s,especially Albert Fogg,having been key figures in that plan far more than Stokes.
gingerfold:
There’s a bit of fog wants dispersing here just to help CF. It concerns Dr Albert Fogg and Mr Arthur Fogg.
Dr Albert Fogg was Director of the Council of The Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) from its inception in 1946 until he resigned his position in August 1964 to become the full time Director of Research and Board Member of British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC).
Mr Arthur Fogg was Director and General Manager at AEC, and he moved to Leyland in 1969 as Director and General Manager of Leyland Motors, the truck division, and he replaced Ron Ellis.
Arthur Fogg had taken over at AEC from John Bowley, who originally put the V8 engine project into being. John Bowley had joined AEC from Guy, where he was General Manager.
So once again CF has shown his complete lack of knowledge of AEC and Leyland by quoting names and apportioning decisions to them when he didn’t even know who they were are what their roles in the organisation were.
Firstly Albert Fogg could be stated as being the ultimate head of Group Engineering department at least during the point in time when AEC were instructed to resurrect the V8 project which they then got on with and which AEC’s designers were supposedly so ‘horrified’,or was it ‘delighted’ about ?.He is also accredited with being the instigator of the 500 fiasco ?.
Yes admittedly it seems that I was actually talking about the other Fogg ( AEC’s guvnor ) in the case of the gushing praise of the resulting gutless screamer at the launch party.While we can obviously infer same in the case of the other Fogg anyway.
In which case it would still be fair to say that the blame for the resulting predictable fiasco rests with the two Foggs not as Anorak thinks Stokes.
Having said that just maybe like the two Foggs Stokes also had a penchant for high revving truck diesels and actually thought the Detroit really was revving at 2,000-4,000 rpm when he heard it running and that’s why he wanted to keep it in the Crusader.While the two Foggs just thought anything to divert his attention while they got on with making the real screamers that helped to bring down the whole firm.
Carryfast:
…
Also have to say that I’m not convinced that there is any connection at all between the 864 and the Scania V8 at least.
Are you mad?
It actually happened.
Going to do some painting now,i can have a more structural conversation with the toilet wall.
He is mad, but we still need to see some evidence of the detail of the Mack/Scania cooperation viv a vis the DS14. So far, we have only seen a Mack enthusiasts’ web forum which declares that the Swedish V8 was based on the END864. Both makers’ are quite candid about the swap deal with the smaller engines and the bus, as far as I know, but there is nothing that I have seen in any Scania history which credits Mack at all. Over on the DS14 thread, a very knowledgeable poster has said that the original designs were Swedish.
The DS14 and the Maxidyne are possibly the two greatest innovations in lorry engine history- investigation of the collaboration between their makers is caviar to old lorry enthusiasts. Sorry AEC buffs, I’ve digressed again, but not completely- the engineering feast that was the late 1960s did not have to end in failure. The AEC V8 was not a million miles from being counted among the greats.
Carryfast:
…
Also have to say that I’m not convinced that there is any connection at all between the 864 and the Scania V8 at least.
Are you mad?
It actually happened.
Going to do some painting now,i can have a more structural conversation with the toilet wall.
He is mad, but we still need to see some evidence of the detail of the Mack/Scania cooperation viv a vis the DS14. So far, we have only seen a Mack enthusiasts’ web forum which declares that the Swedish V8 was based on the END864. Both makers’ are quite candid about the swap deal with the smaller engines and the bus, as far as I know, but there is nothing that I have seen in any Scania history which credits Mack at all. Over on the DS14 thread, a very knowledgeable poster has said that the original designs were Swedish.
The DS14 and the Maxidyne are possibly the two greatest innovations in lorry engine history- investigation of the collaboration between their makers is caviar to old lorry enthusiasts. Sorry AEC buffs, I’ve digressed again, but not completely- the engineering feast that was the late 1960s did not have to end in failure. The AEC V8 was not a million miles from being counted among the greats.
The AEC was around just over an inch short of the Scania mark to be precise.Which might as well have been a light year.As for the maxidyne the 865 seems to have been all out at 77 lb/ft per litre as opposed to the eventual 120 lb/ft per litre of the Scania.It also didn’t seem to match the 6 cylinder versions of the maxidyne either at around 90 lb/ft per litre.
On that note remind us what was the stroke measurement of the 6 cylinder maxidyne versions v the TL12 ?.Even at that the word out there is that they were running into excessive cylinder pressure issues causing damage to components resulting in the need for de rating of the maxidyne design.While the 865 seems to have also got itself a bad name for reliability v the 864.
Carryfast:
…
Also have to say that I’m not convinced that there is any connection at all between the 864 and the Scania V8 at least.
Are you mad?
It actually happened.
Going to do some painting now,i can have a more structural conversation with the toilet wall.
He is mad, but we still need to see some evidence of the detail of the Mack/Scania cooperation viv a vis the DS14. So far, we have only seen a Mack enthusiasts’ web forum which declares that the Swedish V8 was based on the END864. Both makers’ are quite candid about the swap deal with the smaller engines and the bus, as far as I know, but there is nothing that I have seen in any Scania history which credits Mack at all. Over on the DS14 thread, a very knowledgeable poster has said that the original designs were Swedish.
The DS14 and the Maxidyne are possibly the two greatest innovations in lorry engine history- investigation of the collaboration between their makers is caviar to old lorry enthusiasts. Sorry AEC buffs, I’ve digressed again, but not completely- the engineering feast that was the late 1960s did not have to end in failure. The AEC V8 was not a million miles from being counted among the greats.
Couldn’t agree more,we need to dig something out in gospel,but i was referring to the rest of the post including the AE comment.
gingerfold:
There’s a bit of fog wants dispersing here just to help CF. It concerns Dr Albert Fogg and Mr Arthur Fogg.
Dr Albert Fogg was Director of the Council of The Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) from its inception in 1946 until he resigned his position in August 1964 to become the full time Director of Research and Board Member of British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC).
Mr Arthur Fogg was Director and General Manager at AEC, and he moved to Leyland in 1969 as Director and General Manager of Leyland Motors, the truck division, and he replaced Ron Ellis.
Arthur Fogg had taken over at AEC from John Bowley, who originally put the V8 engine project into being. John Bowley had joined AEC from Guy, where he was General Manager.
So once again CF has shown his complete lack of knowledge of AEC and Leyland by quoting names and apportioning decisions to them when he didn’t even know who they were are what their roles in the organisation were.
Firstly Albert Fogg could be stated as being the ultimate head of Group Engineering department at least during the point in time when AEC were instructed to resurrect the V8 project which they then got on with and which AEC’s designers were supposedly so ‘horrified’,or was it ‘delighted’ about ?.He is also accredited with being the instigator of the 500 fiasco ?.
Yes admittedly it seems that I was actually talking about the other Fogg ( AEC’s guvnor ) in the case of the gushing praise of the resulting gutless screamer at the launch party.While we can obviously infer same in the case of the other Fogg anyway.
In which case it would still be fair to say that the blame for the resulting predictable fiasco rests with the two Foggs not as Anorak thinks Stokes.
Having said that just maybe like the two Foggs Stokes also had a penchant for high revving truck diesels and actually thought the Detroit really was revving at 2,000-4,000 rpm when he heard it running and that’s why he wanted to keep it in the Crusader.While the two Foggs just thought anything to divert his attention while they got on with making the real screamers that helped to bring down the whole firm. [emoji38]
[zb]
anorak:
…the engineering feast that was the late 1960s did not have to end in failure. The AEC V8 was not a million miles from being counted among the greats.
Very true. But you realise that even just writing those words will unleash another multi-hundred-word stream of diatribe!.
I’m sure most have by now lost the will to follow the confusing and ‘goal post shifting’ posts on this thread due to the aforementioned, but I once had a very interesting conversation with someone fortunate enough to drive a Mandator V8 in revenue earning service, and also commercially operate an 8V71 powered 6x4 Crusader here in the UK, so could give a first hand assessment of both (very different) vehicles from the drivers seat, albeit eight years apart. He didn’t use the word ‘gutless’ once, quite the opposite, but as it contradicts CF’s ‘vast knowledge’ there is little point in writing it up here to have it’s validity questioned and inflict everyone with yet more very boring previously trotted out nonsense!.
Very interesting formative history,well worth reading even for you Carryfast.Especially the bottom paraghraph concerning the E9.
It says the DS14 was based on the ENDT865, which was the 5.25"x5" version, introduced in 1969. The DS14 actually had the same dimensions as the earlier END(T)864- 127x140mm. It is these anomalies which urge me to look further/deeper.
ERF:
…
I’m sure most have by now lost the will to follow the confusing and ‘goal post shifting’ posts on this thread …
Just skip over the nonsense posts. There’s good information to be shared, and this thread is bubbling along nicely.
gingerfold:
There’s a bit of fog wants dispersing here just to help CF. It concerns Dr Albert Fogg and Mr Arthur Fogg.
Dr Albert Fogg was Director of the Council of The Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) from its inception in 1946 until he resigned his position in August 1964 to become the full time Director of Research and Board Member of British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC).
Mr Arthur Fogg was Director and General Manager at AEC, and he moved to Leyland in 1969 as Director and General Manager of Leyland Motors, the truck division, and he replaced Ron Ellis.
Arthur Fogg had taken over at AEC from John Bowley, who originally put the V8 engine project into being. John Bowley had joined AEC from Guy, where he was General Manager.
So once again CF has shown his complete lack of knowledge of AEC and Leyland by quoting names and apportioning decisions to them when he didn’t even know who they were are what their roles in the organisation were.
But why would he , he never listens to facts if they don`t fit into his little world
What I would like to about Carryfast is,
Who ties his shoelaces in the morning?
Very interesting formative history,well worth reading even for you Carryfast.Especially the bottom paraghraph concerning the E9.
So are you trying to say that the Mack 865 and 998/E9 were both superior designs to the Scania V8 ?.
While the way I see it is that Scania chose the type of bore stroke of the 864 not the 865 ?.Then went for even more stroke measurement later,unlike the Mack 998.Don’t see how that does anything other than to confirm everything I’ve said about the AEC V8 but obviously to an even larger extent compared to the Mack 865 or 998.IE Scania recognised the importance of the leverage side of the specific torque equation.While AEC seemed to just be going for as much power as possible,from as small a capacity as possible,by compromising on leverage at the crank.Thereby creating the worst of all worlds situation of more stress in the piston to crank component chain and resulting loss of specific torque output all to create as much power as possible by maximising engine speed.The problem being that the loss of torque combined with the extra stress predictably outweighed any possible gains in multiplying less torque by more engine speed.Which is a bleedin stupid thing to do in the case of a heavy truck engine regardless of what Mack did or didn’t do.With predictable results.
On that note no I don’t get Mack’s thinking that the 865 bore stroke combination contained more torque potential than the 864’s.Nor for that matter staying with the 864’s 140 mm stroke in the case of the E9/998.But I absolutely understand Scanias thinking in going for the 864’s stroke in the case of the DS 14 followed by then more.
We’ve also got the clearly enthusiastic documented statements from both Roberts and Fogg as opposed to the relatively understated comments of Stokes,at the V8 Mandator launch party.
