Carryfast:
While the article also blows apart the argument that Fuller transmissions were unheard of here in the day.
Do read the posts, CF. ‘ERF’ stated quite clearly on Feb 8th and again on Feb 10th that the RT/RTO510 which became the 610 were available here in 1968, but that they were the ONLY Fuller available. No one said anything about them being unheard of. You’re making all this up as you go along! Robert
It’s clear that I was referring to the period between around 1966-68/9 when the AEC V8 project could/should have been ditched in favour of a clean sheet 690 based 130x142 V8 put in the 3 VTG.To which the answer was they wouldn’t have had a transmission to take the increased torque output.When the 13 speed Fuller capable of handling the torque output of the 12v71 was there and proven since at least 1966.To which the answer was the UK was supposedly different.As for there supposedly only being a max 610 Fuller available in that regard then how did Scammell then end up with the relevant 9 speed for the 8v71 IN 1968 ?.
It’s not me who’s making anything up as I go along and it wasn’t me who put a torqueless screamer into a max weight truck,introduced in the late 1960’s,thereby,together with the 500 in the lower sectors,helping to bring down the whole firm in the form of Leyland Group.Nor was it Stokes when that accolade belongs to Fogg and him alone being Leyland Group’s engineering director at the time.Then we’ve got the contradiction of people like Anorak defending the use of limited formula race car design for heavy truck applications while then contradicting themselves by saying that the predictable failure of that idea is all Stokes’ fault.
Carryfast:
While the article also blows apart the argument that Fuller transmissions were unheard of here in the day.
Do read the posts, CF. ‘ERF’ stated quite clearly on Feb 8th and again on Feb 10th that the RT/RTO510 which became the 610 were available here in 1968, but that they were the ONLY Fuller available. No one said anything about them being unheard of. You’re making all this up as you go along! Robert
EDIT Ha! I see ‘ERF’ has beaten my to it! lol
Great minds Robert…!
I actually said that the 610 was the first Fuller in UK production, making it the only Fuller viable and available for volume vehicle production here in 1968.
The fact that ERF, Atkinson and Scammell had all taken delivery of a handful of 910 and 915 gearboxes by 1968 is irrelevant to all but CF. The total number of Fuller gearboxes supplied by ENV and fitted by ERF between 1964 and 1968 was less than two weeks of AEC goods vehicle production!.
No I’m not aware of any type of trade embargoes/restrictions that would have stopped AEC having access to as many Fuller transmission imports of whatever type they needed as were available to the combined US assemblers.Nor any agents here having sole rights to US imports of US manufactured components of any type especially in the case of anything only available by direct import.Which probably explains how my employers had no trouble with doing exactly what I said in ordering products like the 18v71 and relevant transmission for automotive use over the phone when that combination was as rare as hen’s teeth in any type of truck even in the States.Also don’t remember any type of rationing regarding how many were ordered the more the better from the GM’s at least point of view and probably Fuller also in the case of their products.Bearing in mind we were actually using that GM component technology to compete with US domestic products like Oshskosh on their home turf and winning out with it.
‘However’ having said that ‘if’ you’re saying that such free access to US imports didn’t apply in the case of AEC etc,with strict rationing being applied to US component exports,then surely that just adds weight to the theory of conspiracy and sabotage,of the uk truck manufacturing industry,to the advantage of the foreign competition,emanating from high up in US government circles,not ■■■■ up.
ERF:
CM 3rd July 1970.
The AEC Mandator V8 had already been withdrawn from sale, but…
0
Now await with much interest gingerfold’s explanation of how/why the 8v71 got put on the options list for the Crusader from day 1 and by all accounts was the first type off the line instead of just offering the AEC V8 in it.
ERF:
Your previously posted childishly simplistic assessment of the situation regarding proposed Fuller Transmission supply to AEC production in 1968 needing ‘no more than a phone call’ just highlights your comprehensive lack of understanding regarding commercial vehicle markets and manufacture in Great Britain in the 1960’s.
Regarding the article, this was November 1969, and the Fuller 910 and 915 transmissions were already established and had been in UK production for months (and so were becoming viable for volume vehicle production), but then you would already know that if you had actually read the previous information posted here.
The fact that fuller transmissions were ‘‘already established by 1969’’ stops a 690 based 130 x 142 V8 powered,13 speed fuller equipped,3 VTG,ready for production before the Scania 140,with the Fuller sourcing needing nothing more than a phone call to Fuller and payment,how ?.
Your answers are all here, on this and previous pages CF.
I’m not going through it all - yet again.
All you have to do is read. You CAN read I take it… ■■
newmercman:
Don’t lose heart chaps, some really interesting information has surfaced in response to the ramblings from Junction 9.
Now let’s go back 50yrs or so, 32ton was going to be a thing and the articulated lorry was going to be the industry standard to accommodate the 32ton GVW. So the designers and engineers at all the lorry manufacturers sat down and came up with a plan to take them into the next chapter.
More power would be needed, so most of them uprated their current engines, but AEC, Bedford and Ford decided on a different approach. AEC, as some of you may know, designed a V8, Bedford and Ford however decided to use their current engines and place two side by side, thereby doubling the available power. Predictably the Bedford and Ford concepts were not well received and the idea was consigned to the bin, where it belonged.
AEC with their V8 were onto something though, the design parameters of fitting the engine under the new Ergomatic cab meant that an oversquare design would be necessary, round holes require round pegs after all and a design was settled upon. During field trials with selected customers, shortcomings were found, quite serious ones that required major changes to the cooling system being the most apparent. This meant a big reengineering job, but the powers that be decided to put the project on hold.
Then things changed, put it into production came the message from above and they did, with the expected results, it failed. Now they could have done things differently, using a different cab mounted higher on the chassis would have allowed for a less compact engine, eliminating the need for a short stroke, but they had to use the Ergomatic cab, so that was out.
They could have bought in the 8V71 from Detroit Diesels, but they were designers and engineers, not assemblers, so that was out, it would also require extensive modification to the floorpan of the Ergomatic cab to accommodate too, so it was never a viable option. Customer acceptance would also be an issue as the Foden and Rootes Group two stroke engines were not the best selling engines on the market and importantly, the unions needed to be kept happy, laying off most of the staff in the engine manufacturing departments would have not been an action without consequences.
Putting to one side the idea of handing the job over to Scammell in the form of a 4x2 8v71 Crusader.
They’ve got the 3 VTG and its nice smart big Pete knock off cab sitting there doing nothing.They’ve got the proven wet liner 690 engine architecture which can be used in the V8 configuration.We know the thing is capable of putting out around 51 lb/ft per litre and around 190 hp in NA form and more turbocharged up to around 250 hp all that in just 6 cylinder form.Might as well derate it to around 240 NA and 290 turbocharged respectively because the customers don’t want/need more yet.The thing will be bullet proof and produce more power than the 8LXB at even less rpm and use less fuel than either the 8v71 or the Scania and the drivers will all want to drive it.What’s not to like.
I agree, but we have the benefit of hindsight and fantasy. This debacle was the result of the internal competition between the marques under the BL umbrella, if they had, as I suggested on the Marathon thread, pooled resources and built a complete range from the start of the BL truck division, I’m sure that it would have been a different story.
I also agree with your thoughts on the Ergomatic cab, it was no good for a heavy tractor unit, proven by the AEC V8, too many compromises were made in order to accommodate the use of the Ergomatic cab, they lifted it for the Marathon, if they had done the same for the Mandator V8, the engine design wouldn’t have had to be compromised in the way it was.
It was the sign of things to come, arrogance and incompetence, which ultimately finished the group off for good.
Horses for courses though, it was a very good cab, for day work of any type, rigids or artics, even a couple of nights out with a sleeper version, much like the FL/FM, CF, P cab etc, but a top of the range powerhouse deserves and needs a bigger more in your face cab. An earlier AEC version of the MK1 Marathon would have been just the job in my opinion.
newmercman:
I agree, but we have the benefit of hindsight and fantasy. This debacle was the result of the internal competition between the marques under the BL umbrella, if they had, as I suggested on the Marathon thread, pooled resources and built a complete range from the start of the BL truck division, I’m sure that it would have been a different story.
A very sound theory with the potential to engineer some outstanding vehicles.
Just one problem - who would’ve bought them?
Which marque would apply to which range?
We found this first hand in the late 70’s and into the 80’s. When Guy disappeared, their loyal customers felt so betrayed by BL that they went European or shopping at Sandbach, thus reducing BL group sales. When AEC went, their customers felt the same, not many transferred over to Leyland, who they saw as the enemy. The same with Scammell.
The BL car group tried a development strategy similar to that you suggest with the Rover SD1 car, and came up against the same attitude from the British buyer. Triumph customers didn’t want the Rover body and V8 engine. Rover customers felt short changed by the Triumph designed 6 pot engine and ‘step backwards’ from their advanced P6 suspension.
My personal opinion (and that’s all it is!) sways towards the BL umbrella itself being the problem. If each manufacturer had maintained their engineering independence, and the grouping as we know it had never happened, I think the end products of each marque would have benefited from better and less blinkered engineering development, hindered less by accountant led boardroom meddling. Sure, by the end of the 80’s we would still have lost the weaker marques to history, but I think the rest would have been around for a lot longer - including AEC.
newmercman:
I also agree with your thoughts on the Ergomatic cab, it was no good for a heavy tractor unit, proven by the AEC V8, too many compromises were made in order to accommodate the use of the Ergomatic cab, they lifted it for the Marathon, if they had done the same for the Mandator V8, the engine design wouldn’t have had to be compromised in the way it was.
It was the sign of things to come, arrogance and incompetence, which ultimately finished the group off for good.
Yes…and no in my view.
The Ergomatic cab was a massive step forward for the driver in 1964. Climb out of…say a 1964 ERF KV or Atkinson cab and step into an Ergomatic, and the difference is akin to climbing off a farm tractor and stepping into a car. It’s a lot easier on the human body than any British lorry cab that came before, but as you say, it did lead to compromise. I don’t personally subscribe to the opinion that the Ergomatic cab led significantly to the failure of the AEC V8 though. With adequate time and resources AEC engineers could have completely cured the engine’s mechanical shortcomings, and developed clever and imaginative solutions to the cooling capacity issues, all without touching the cab. A taller cab would have certainly made it an easier job for them though, and made more sensible radiator positioning a lot easier!.
newmercman:
Don’t lose heart chaps, some really interesting information has surfaced in response to the ramblings from Junction 9.
Now let’s go back 50yrs or so, 32ton was going to be a thing and the articulated lorry was going to be the industry standard to accommodate the 32ton GVW. So the designers and engineers at all the lorry manufacturers sat down and came up with a plan to take them into the next chapter.
More power would be needed, so most of them uprated their current engines, but AEC, Bedford and Ford decided on a different approach. AEC, as some of you may know, designed a V8, Bedford and Ford however decided to use their current engines and place two side by side, thereby doubling the available power. Predictably the Bedford and Ford concepts were not well received and the idea was consigned to the bin, where it belonged.
AEC with their V8 were onto something though, the design parameters of fitting the engine under the new Ergomatic cab meant that an oversquare design would be necessary, round holes require round pegs after all and a design was settled upon. During field trials with selected customers, shortcomings were found, quite serious ones that required major changes to the cooling system being the most apparent. This meant a big reengineering job, but the powers that be decided to put the project on hold.
Then things changed, put it into production came the message from above and they did, with the expected results, it failed. Now they could have done things differently, using a different cab mounted higher on the chassis would have allowed for a less compact engine, eliminating the need for a short stroke, but they had to use the Ergomatic cab, so that was out.
They could have bought in the 8V71 from Detroit Diesels, but they were designers and engineers, not assemblers, so that was out, it would also require extensive modification to the floorpan of the Ergomatic cab to accommodate too, so it was never a viable option. Customer acceptance would also be an issue as the Foden and Rootes Group two stroke engines were not the best selling engines on the market and importantly, the unions needed to be kept happy, laying off most of the staff in the engine manufacturing departments would have not been an action without consequences.
Putting to one side the idea of handing the job over to Scammell in the form of a 4x2 8v71 Crusader.
They’ve got the 3 VTG and its nice smart big Pete knock off cab sitting there doing nothing.They’ve got the proven wet liner 690 engine architecture which can be used in the V8 configuration.We know the thing is capable of putting out around 51 lb/ft per litre and around 190 hp in NA form and more turbocharged up to around 250 hp all that in just 6 cylinder form.Might as well derate it to around 240 NA and 290 turbocharged respectively because the customers don’t want/need more yet.The thing will be bullet proof and produce more power than the 8LXB at even less rpm and use less fuel than either the 8v71 or the Scania and the drivers will all want to drive it.What’s not to like.
I agree, but we have the benefit of hindsight and fantasy.
At last pure logic wins out in the end.
Which just leaves the question how/why hindsight and not the perfectly reasonable expected logical solution in the day ?.Seems like the perfect doable compromise between the advantages of the 8 cylinder Gardner and the Scania 140.
The really surprising thing is that the same argument doesn’t seem to have taken place among AEC’s/Scammell’s designers and Albert Fogg,or who knows maybe it did.
ERF, you raise an important point, customer loyalty, would, in this case, AEC customers, buy Leyland badged vehicles? I believe they would, as long as nothing changed but the badges, on the surface at least, ultimately shared technology between the different marques would bring both a cost saving to the group as a whole and provide buyers with a better lorry.
I don’t disagree about the Ergomatic cab, it was revolutionary and much better than anything from the competition, I spent my childhood in the lorries of the era and my personal favourite by far was the Mandator. Easy access, very important for a kid, clambering up wheel nuts to reach the cab could be a painful experience lol, quieter than the rest, definitely warmer and the engine hump was the perfect height to rest my weary head, but the direction that the V8 was heading required an even better version, it should have gone hand in hand with the new high powered model, a proper range topper.
The Daf CF has been mentioned a few times and is a good example, it’s the 760 Mandator of today, whereas the XF range is the top of the line and gets the high power option, same with all the other manufacturers, the big power option always comes with a bigger cab. In the case of the V8, it would have solved one of its fundamental flaws too. A missed opportunity.
ERF:
A very sound theory with the potential to engineer some outstanding vehicles.
Just one problem - who would’ve bought them?
Which marque would apply to which range?
We found this first hand in the late 70’s and into the 80’s. When Guy disappeared, their loyal customers felt so betrayed by BL that they went European or shopping at Sandbach, thus reducing BL group sales. When AEC went, their customers felt the same, not many transferred over to Leyland, who they saw as the enemy. The same with Scammell.
The BL car group tried a development strategy similar to that you suggest with the Rover SD1 car, and came up against the same attitude from the British buyer. Triumph customers didn’t want the Rover body and V8 engine. Rover customers felt short changed by the Triumph designed 6 pot engine and ‘step backwards’ from their advanced P6 suspension.
My personal opinion (and that’s all it is!) sways towards the BL umbrella itself being the problem. If each manufacturer had maintained their engineering independence, and the grouping as we know it had never happened, I think the end products of each marque would have benefited from better and less blinkered engineering development, hindered less by accountant led boardroom meddling. Sure, by the end of the 80’s we would still have lost the weaker marques to history, but I think the rest would have been around for a lot longer - including AEC.
Yes…and no in my view.
The Ergomatic cab was a massive step forward for the driver in 1964. Climb out of…say a 1964 ERF KV or Atkinson cab and step into an Ergomatic, and the difference is akin to climbing off a farm tractor and stepping into a car. It’s a lot easier on the human body than any British lorry cab that came before, but as you say, it did lead to compromise. I don’t personally subscribe to the opinion that the Ergomatic cab led significantly to the failure of the AEC V8 though. With adequate time and resources AEC engineers could have completely cured the engine’s mechanical shortcomings, and developed clever and imaginative solutions to the cooling capacity issues, all without touching the cab. A taller cab would have certainly made it an easier job for them though, and made more sensible radiator positioning a lot easier!.
Firstly we’ve had the car discussion previously and as a Triumph enthusiast in the day it wasn’t about the badge it was about the product.In that most Triumph buyers wanted ( were expecting ) the replacement for the Triumph 2.5 and Rover P6 to be based on a development of the Triumph saloon using the Rover V8 engine.We ended up with the ugly hatch back live axle SD1 which alienated most Triumph buyers and a good proportion of Rover buyers so that was a win for BMW among others like Ford and GM in the day and the rest was history for Rover and Triumph.Again leaving the question was it conspiracy or ■■■■ up.
As for the cab issue.It’s clear that the Mandator V8 was a schizophrenic mixture of Perkins and DS14 so as to fit the wrong engine in the wrong cab for the vehicle sector it was aimed at.IE the poor bleedin thing didn’t know what it was and was effectively no good for anything because it wasn’t one thing or another and made as much sense as Scania chopping down the DS14 in order to make it fit under 81 series cab.I can just imagine the Swedes saying why the zb are we doing this and what is it actually for and we’re going to end up with the worst of all worlds of a big engine with all the downsides of a small one doing a big engine job and a small cab that also needs to be a big one.The thing really was nuts.
That idea does carry some weight, however we do have the benefit of hindsight. I know AEC and Scania had some dialogue regarding a partnership of sorts, but really Scania never figured in anyone’s plans, nor did the rest of the foreign manufacturers, they weren’t really serious competition until the 70s.
Yes, the Leyland people should have seen it coming, especially given the political agenda of the time, join the common market at all costs etc. However, they still had to convince their customers to go for a large cab tractor unit with a 300ish hp engine, which ironically they did, unfortunately it was to their cost, because of the lack of options and unreliability of the offerings from BL led the customers into the arms of Scania and the rest.
But and it’s a big but, I can say this because I do have the benefit of hindsight, at the time, I’m sure the idea of a 300ish hp Mandator seemed as revolutionary as putting a man on the moon. It turned out not to be a success for a number of reasons, reasons that can be attributed to bad decisions from the board of directors, not from the design engineers.
Just been having a catch-up read of the latest posts as I couldn’t join the debate last evening as I had a central heating breakdown at home to try and sort out.
Without digressing too much from the main theme of the discussion, i.e. the AEC V8, as we keep getting the Detroit Diesel 8v71 mentioned then it begs the question why did it become an option in certain Scammell Crusader models? It might have had some special types applications in the UK before the Crusader, but in standard UK truck specifications it was an unknown quantity.
The answer as to why the Detroit 8v71 was used in military 6x4 Crusaders is because the MoD specified it. Obviously Scammell had a long standing relationship as a supplier to the MoD, and its predecessor The War Office, but all military vehicle contracts and vehicle specifications are agreed by the manufacturer and the MoD procurement departments. Some military vehicles are very similar to civilian vehicles, for example AEC Mammoth Major 6x4 refuellers for the RAF, others are far more specialised. And different branches of the armed forces have their own special requirements.
Back in the mid-1960s, when the Crusader range was first planned, as a military vehicle in its first inception, the Cold War was at its height and all the military strategists believed that non-nuclear land warfare between NATO (spearheaded by the US Army) and the USSR would be fought on the plains of North Eastern Europe. Deployment of tanks and other military hardware would need to be done quickly on an established road network and there would be a pooling of logistical resources, if necessary, between the NATO allies. As the Detroit Diesel engines were common in US military vehicles and other motorised equipment then by having British and NATO vehicles with the same engine types then it was better for battlefield maintenance and repair facilities. The scenario of US maintenance units repairing Scammell Crusaders would have been considered. The Detroit Diesel engines had their origin in the early 1940s, this specialised division being set up by General Motors to supply the US military.
I am fortunate in that my brother in law was a career civil servant and worked in the MoD for 43 years until retirement at a very senior level. He was stationed at NATO headquarters in Brussels from 1973 until 1975 and such was his seniority that he took part in “war games” with senior military top brass at various times in the UK, Europe, and the USA.
No doubt the above information will be dis-regarded by one or two, but my research has been backed up by my brother in law who has provided the military scenarios outlined above. So, that is the reason that Scammell used the Detroit Diesel 8v71, and the ■■■■■■■ V8-903 was also listed, but whether any were built with that option is not known.
That sounds entirely logical with the majority of the vehicles presumably with BAOR. One only has to look at accounts from REME personnel about the Korean war to realise that the British have always been woefully underequipped with spare parts and just about everything else in the field. There are many tales of alcohol (the US Army is ‘dry’) being traded for Jeep engines, warm clothing, space heaters etc. With a few notable exceptions the British military have always been saddled with antiquated junk and precious little to keep it going. It would therfore make sense to have at least one component common with the US supply chain.
It also makes sense to offer the DD engine in the Aus and NZ markets as the US manufacturers had plant on the ground out there, meaning parts and service were available. Which wasn’t the case in the UK, until the mid 70s when Bedford started fitting them, which was also a rather unsuccessful enterprise. Which proves the case against using the engine in BL vehicles, with the 500 series and the V8 already a sales disaster, using the DD engines would finished the group long before Daf pulled the plug.
coomsey:
I need some help with this please. Is it industry normal to design the engine, make one then see if it works? Cheers Paul
Yes Paul, at least it was in the 1960’s, especially so with a clean sheet design.
The stages of development for the AEC V8 should have been…
Concept
Design Drawings
Materials Selection and Testing
Prototype Working Drawings
Prototype Casting and Machining
Prototype Engine Assembly and Testing
Development Review (back to step 2 if required)
More Prototype Engine Testing
Another Development Review
Production Drawings
Production Tooling
Engine into Production
AEC went from step 6 straight to step 10 with the V8.
The explanation of the 8v71’s availability in the military spec. Crusader makes perfect sense. Imagine Yankee squaddies wrestling with AEC V8 repairs in the middle of a war!
The turbo AEC V8 would have wiped the floor with any Detroit Diesel engine in the mid 1970s, I reckon.
newmercman:
ERF, you raise an important point, customer loyalty, would, in this case, AEC customers, buy Leyland badged vehicles? I believe they would, as long as nothing changed but the badges, on the surface at least, ultimately shared technology between the different marques would bring both a cost saving to the group as a whole and provide buyers with a better lorry.
I don’t disagree about the Ergomatic cab, it was revolutionary and much better than anything from the competition, I spent my childhood in the lorries of the era and my personal favourite by far was the Mandator. Easy access, very important for a kid, clambering up wheel nuts to reach the cab could be a painful experience lol, quieter than the rest, definitely warmer and the engine hump was the perfect height to rest my weary head, but the direction that the V8 was heading required an even better version, it should have gone hand in hand with the new high powered model, a proper range topper.
The Daf CF has been mentioned a few times and is a good example, it’s the 760 Mandator of today, whereas the XF range is the top of the line and gets the high power option, same with all the other manufacturers, the big power option always comes with a bigger cab. In the case of the V8, it would have solved one of its fundamental flaws too. A missed opportunity.
I remember tremendous anti Leyland feeling among customers at the time, who felt very bitter that their chosen marque had been closed down. Compounded by the fact that Leyland immediately raised the price of parts for these withdrawn marques by a considerable margin.
Carryfast stated in his post that it’s all about the product, not the name. To some of these operators it was ALL about the name. Hell could freeze over before they would have the word ‘Leyland’ going down the road on the front of their lorries. By the 1980’s these operators had a wide choice of well designed and reliable goods vehicles at their disposal, and they used it!.
I can completely see where you are coming from on cabs. The premium spec vehicle having greater road presence etc, but remember this was the 1960’s. Can you imagine turning up at a traditional British haulage yard in 1968 with the Leyland 3VTG concept vehicle as a sales demonstrator? The kids (myself included!) would have stood open mouthed in awe of the exhaust stacks, chrome air horns and cruising lights. The boss would’ve flung open his office door barking “get that [zb] circus waggon out of here”!
