newmercman:
You were doing well for a while Carryfast, then you revert back to your old self and your posts become, to put it bluntly, annoying. To the point that I get to a certain phrase and move on to the next post, a strategy that many of us adopt. So really, you’re wasting your time with everything you say from that point onwards.
And… to help you further, between you and I, you’re talking out of your arse, you keep comparing the V8 with full production engines, using all manner of different parameters to prove a point that only exists in your disturbed mind.
Now, read this and let it sink in, then read it again and again until you understand how it sheds a completely different light onto the AEC V8 design from the one you mistakenly have now. THE AEC V8 WAS A PROTOTYPE ENGINE, IT DID NOT GET THE NECESSARY DEVELOPMENT WORK TO TURN IT INTO A FULL PRODUCTION ENGINE. IT WAS FLAWED IN MANY WAYS AND NEEDED SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO OVERCOME THE PROBLEMS DISCOVERED DURING PRE PRODUCTION OPERATIONAL TRIALS CONDUCTED WITH SEVERAL MAJOR CUSTOMERS.
Nobody knows who made the decision to put it into production before it was ready, but someone did and as Stokes was top man at the time, the blame lies at his feet, if A ship sinks, the captain goes down with it. Nobody has said that he personally made the phone call to Southall, just as nobody has said that Southall gave any indication that the V8 was ready to go into full production, quite the opposite in the case of the latter.
it’s beyond question that any of the engines that you have used in your comparisons were better, but each and every one of them had been through the complete research and development cycle and had all the kinks ironed out, so any comparisons between a full production engine and the AEC V8 are like comparing an iPod to an 8 track.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
It’s clear that we’re dealing with getting the basic architecture right and the unfixable resulting issues if it’s not.Which obviously applies from the drawing board stage let alone prototype stage and let alone again put into service with customers in whatever form .
While the CM references to it’s availability didn’t say anything about it only being a protototype under testing with ‘potential’ customers.Nor would Leyland have been liable to any resulting ‘warranty’ costs or replacing ‘customer’ vehicles assuming the thing failed during so called ‘testing’ and in which the ‘potential’ customer was made fully aware of that at the point of supply.IE since when did any warranty responsibilities and issues apply between the user and supplier of a demonstrator ?.Nor would Leyland have spent a fortune on massive ‘production’ facilities ‘if’ we’re only talking about a supposed ‘pre production’ ‘proto type’ supposedly not ready for production and sale to customers.
The fact was its unfixable architecture and the decision to put it into ‘production’,‘for sale’ to real paying customers,was made by Roberts and the two Foggs.Although admittedly probably stupidly rubber stamped by Stokes,or maybe possibly not depending on exactly when that happened and Stokes’ exact ranking in the firm at that exact point in time.
Realistically the only way that your idea would make any sense would have been if Roberts and Arthur Fogg had actually told Albert Fogg that they’d had a rethink on the architecture and overall capacity of the AEC V8 and decided it won’t work.Instead of which their ongoing confidence in it was made clear at the ‘production’ ‘launch’ together with their full support of that ‘launch’. 
)
Which really deserves nothing less than a venomous response in their defence.
